Kathryn Paige Harden, the authoress of "The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality", is a Stupid Dirty Lying Whore

Harden's Folly by Steve Sailer - https://www.takimag.com/article/hardens-folly/

This Kathryn Paige Harden is a real Tarden. Is she really this stupid or just prone to mendacity in an academic culture that prides itself on free inquiry all the while banishing the slightest hint of heterodoxy? Harden tries so hard to prove it's all about the science while pandering to official dogma with mantra-like incantations about race not being real.

All this suggests US and West in general are a theocracy. To deviate from officialdom, you must try to fool the authorities(and even yourself) that your heresy is not only in tune with but in service to dogma. Harden is like a biologist arguing before the Church that evolutionary theory, far from disproving Creationism, confirms it. The problem isn't so much fooling the others — as one must lie sometimes to 'survive' — as fooling oneself, and Harden seems high on her own supply. Perhaps her formative years under PC made her believe in the official nonsense even as her studies indicate otherwise. Kind of similar to some Chinese wishing to believe their much capitalized economy is an extension of Maoism when its model is closer to Singapore. Her book ought to be called Genetic Hide-and-Seek as that's the game she plays(and in which she can't even find herself). Or the Genetic Shell Game.

Steve Sailer: "elaborately contrived triple-bank-shot attempt to head off growing Ibram X. Kendi-style science denialism"

But is the Kendi Man really about denialism? His only interest seems to be blackity-black, and the likes of him never complain about black over-representation and over-achievement in certain fields, especially athletics. So, to the Kendi Man, it's not about science or genetics but "We blacks deserve everything". It's not about egalitarianism but privilegism by other means, i.e. blacks are owed rewards even when they aren't deserving. Of course, the Kendi Man is just clever enough(or stupid enough, but how can one tell the difference these days?) to drudge up stuff about slavery and Jim Crow as such dominate the current narrative. Mentioning those precludes the need for any rational debate. It's like people used to quote verses from the Bible for instant holy-than-thou points. Kendi's shtick is, "I'm holy because the Narrative favors black magic, so pay me."

Saying the Kendi Man is for egalitarianism is giving him too much credit as idealist or person of principle, however misguided. In truth, he is an arch-tribalist who, if science proved blacks are smarter, would be most welcoming of the finding... along with all the 'woke' idiots whose real religion is black-worship than racial equality. Their fixation on 'not enough black quarterbacks' but never on 'not enough non-black running backs' gives the game away. Inequality in favor of blacks is never a problem. Jewishness is similarly an object of cult reverence. There can never be enough Jews in any department, but when the Jewish share of Princeton students dipped to 10%(still disproportionate given Jews are 2% of US population), that was a huge scandal. The 'injustice' had to be corrected, and Princeton dutifully complied.

Harden: "When social scientists routinely fail to integrate genetics into their models of human development, they leave space for a false narrative that portrays the insights of genetics as a Pandora’s box of 'forbidden knowledge'…"

Harden or Tarden is absolutely the worst because she's doubly dishonest. The race-realists are honest about race and racial differences. The anti-genetic ideologues are, at the very least, honest in their anxiety about the implications of genetic science that can overturn the very foundation of post-WWII consensus. Political Correctness isn't honest about the science but honest in its fear of the science, just like the orangutan patriarch Dr. Zaius in THE PLANET OF THE APES isn't honest about facts but honest in his fears. In contrast, Harden pretends the science is good for Political Correctness. She's either a devious player of 4D chess(which I doubt) or a smart person made stupid by a sickly blend of dishonesty and dogmatism, dime-a-dozen in media and academia.

Steve Sailer: "But, no matter how people differ genetically... we are still not absolved of the responsibility to arrange society to the benefit of all people, not just the tiny slice of global genetic diversity that is people of predominantly European ancestry."

This is doable on the national but not the global scale. Every nation has its share of smarties, middlies, and dummies. All modern systems have progressive taxation and other means to help out the dummies. This is manageable within the national setting, especially in smaller and homogeneous nations. But on a global scale, it's like the Aesop's tale of the dog losing its bone to snatch the seemingly bigger bone reflected in the water. In trying to save the world, the nation will be neglected and fall to pieces. And in the end, the world won't be saved either as it's too big to be saved by any single nation or civilization. Besides, how is a nation supposed to take care of its dummies when it keeps on taking in more people, many of them dummies from all around the world? Perhaps, some of the immigrants will work hard and pay taxes and produce more wealth to take care of the native dummies. But then, the dummies will be further relegated to loser status as there are more competitors in their midst. Worse, what if many of the immigrants are dummies themselves? Sweden used to have a pretty decent system for taking care of its dummies, but the social safety net has frayed because Sweden chose to save Africa and Afghanistan.

Now, it's true that the US has been somewhat different. In most European nations(in the past at least), most of the poor and the dumb were ethnically same as the middle and rich. But in the US, many of the poor have been blacks; worse, blacks haven't been merely poor but prone to criminality and other pathologies, made worse by the fact that they are more muscular and aggressive than whites, which is why so many whites are scared-half-to-death of blacks. Especially following the Civil Rights Movement, black behavior, fueled by rambunctious black pride, has been so unruly that many communities figured they would do better with immigrants than with blacks, a running theme in David Cole's columns. Los Angeles with so many Mexicans may not be paradise but it sure ain't Detroit or Baltimore either.
All these 'progressives' like Harden must decide if they're more about loyalty to the Democratic Party(that gains from mass immigration) or concern for blacks. The dirty secret is the so-called 'progressives' elites want mass-immigration because newcomers are useful buffers between themselves and blacks.
Of course, the problem with blacks is that, even minus immigrant competitors, too many fall through the cracks either due to lower IQ or lack of character(as much of black esteem is about out-hustling others than playing it straight — even the attitude of the smart guy in COOLEY HIGH is, "I can lie and steal too good not to survive").
Also, while many blacks are hostile to more immigration(as they see the newcomers as usurpers and competitors), they identify so closely with the Democratic Party that they favor anything to its advantage. There's kneejerk sense among blacks that what is good for the Democratic Party is good for black people, just like many white conservatives believe GOP is implicitly about white interests. Of course, while a party can boast of its concern for blacks(and Jews and homos), it's taboo for any party or political figure to show any interest that pertains to whites as a group.
But the pro-mass-immigration stance of both parties seem hellbent on replacing both historical blacks and historical whites of America. As Jews control America, it's mainly in their interests. Even as Jews flatter blacks to use against whites, Jews know blacks are the main destroyers of cities where Jewish Power is concentrated. So, Jews want more docile immigrants to replace blacks in urban areas. And Jews want non-white immigrants to replace the historical white Christian America because more diversity among goyim means Jews can play divide-and-rule over them.
With Trump at the helm, it seemed just barely possible for blacks and whites to unite on anti-immigration position. But once Jews engineered the 2020 BLM riots by encouragin the worst tendencies among blacks, the black-white anti-immigration coalition seems dead.
Even MAGA people, after the black riots, would prefer immigrants over blacks who ruin cities. And as immigrants tipped the South to Democratic control which led to the toppling of Confederate monuments, blacks are okay with mass immigration too. Blacks alone couldn’t take the south, but blacks plus immigrants are turning the entire South to the Democratic Party. Same happened in the Midwest. They were mostly Republican, but the combination of white globalists, blacks, and immigrants tipped them Democratic.

The silly whore cannot even decide on her stupid hair color.

As the South fills up with more immigrants, Democrats are gaining over Republicans, and blacks welcome the transformation. But won't blacks face more competition? Or, are black elites unconcerned with the black masses and care only about their own privileges by way of Democrat dominance? Or, do blacks regard non-blacks, white and non-white, as just more people to leech off and suck dry? As blacks have lagged in generating their own wealth, much of their 'economy' depends on milking what others create. It's the same in Africa. Hindus and Chinese are let in to build stuff. Black elites get their cut in the form of bribes and contracts(where non-blacks actually do most of the work). And the unwashed blacks get theirs on occasion through massive looting when riots break out.

Harden and her ilk confuse 'palliative' with 'egalitarian' or 'equitarian'(if such term exists). At most, a free society, even at its most social-democratic-leaning, can be 'palliatarian'(or 'palliational') but never truly 'egalitarian'. If parents have two children and one is big and strong while the other is weak and wobbly, the latter can be provided with palliative care so that he can, at the very least, walk and function in life. But there is No Way he's going to be a high school track star or football player. If a parent has a kid who is very bright and another who is retarded, palliative attention can help out the dummy kid, but he's never going to be a smart kid, let alone a genius. And of course, everyone knows this, but people love to pontificate about 'equity' or 'egalitarian' to either feel good, virtue-signal, or conceal their obsession with elitism. Kamala Harris will yap about 'equity' but has been a whore to the rich, smart, and powerful all her life. Nice cover. That so many conservatives attack the likes of her as 'leftist' means they fell for the trap. She is a whore to the rich and powerful but accused of being 'leftist'(ROTFL), which means her cover has worked.

Harden pretends she's saying something original when the modern order has long accepted the need for social safety nets and palliative measures for the poor, the sick, the old, and etc. Social Security for the old provides a measure of stability, but it's hardly egalitarian. If Social Security made old people equal in health and ability, they would be re-entering the work force. It's precisely because age wears down one's abilities that palliative means are provided for the retired. Same goes for the less intelligent in society. They will never succeed by mainstream standards(unless they win the lottery, the real kind), but we don't want them starving, so they are provided with aid or trained for less demanding jobs.

It is so tiresome to hear proposals for more programs and more funding when so much money has been wasted, is being wasted, and will be wasted on expensive public education for countless blacks, among others, who hardly respond to scholastic overtures. It's like arguing a fat person should be fed more food.

If honest, Harden will admit the US has pretty much given up on a large sector of the black population. All this talk of 'equity' and the pampering of the black elite(as trophies) are really to pretend otherwise. By always pretending to be doing SOMETHING, nothing really has to be done, except by symbolic measures like erecting George Floyd statues and teaching 'woke' catechisms to school children. Indeed, whole swaths of the black population aren't even deemed fit for manual labor, much of which has gone to brown people from south of the border. PC is about talking one way while walking the other way.

Harden: "The fact that income, educational attainment, subjective well-being, psychiatric disease, neighborhood advantage, cognitive test performance, executive function, grit, motivation, and curiosity are all heritable... blah blah"

What really matters is this. While non-genetic factors matter, they are overwhelmed by genetic factors when (1) genetic differences are significant and (2) there is sufficient freedom for most people. If society allows women to play sports but not the men, women will dominate the games even though men are genetically more athletic. But once men are allowed to compete, they will trounce the women(even if women are afforded some slight advantages by society).

PC operates on a fallacy that, because some groups were disadvantaged as a result of socially sanctioned discrimination in the past, the removal of discrimination will result in equality. But did meritocracy in sports lead to equality between blacks and whites? Did Jewish Emancipation lead to equality between Jews and Christians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
Inequality can be the result of social policy but can also result from the free reign of genetic competition, in which case social policy often comes into play to narrow the gap somewhat but never totally because dumb people cannot be geniuses and paralympians cannot complete with four-limbed Olympians. Thus, social policy can go FROM favoring one group over another for supremacism's sake TO favoring one group over another for anti-supremacism's sake. In Russia, removal of anti-Jewish laws accorded equality to Jews, but later, 'affirmative action' penalized Jews to make the playing field more equal for non-Jews.

When a socially discriminatory order shifts to free competition, established hierarchies will eventually make way for new ones. It's like American Football went from all-white to mostly black; it's even truer of basketball, which at time, was dominated by whites and Jews. Now, if everyone had the same IQ, same personality, same health, and same physical abilities, a non-discriminatory order may be reasonably egalitarian, but no such society has ever existed.
The rise of new hierarchies has been the story of capitalism where the old aristocracy was replaced by new elites(who became even richer and more powerful). Jews certainly got lots of money and power owing to their IQ in a liberalized order.

Now, how come we can accept Jewish inferiority in certain areas but not black inferiority in any area? We acknowledge Jews are richer because they are smarter but also accept Jews aren't well-represented in sports because they're less athletic than Africans, Germanics, and Slavs. There's no controversy about Jewish lack-of-success in sports. We accept Jewish advantage in one area and disadvantage in another. So, why can't this be of blacks as well? They can run faster and jump higher, but they are relatively lacking in IQ.
Besides, why should any race be the best in everything? In a way, diffusion of talent among the races makes for a kind of fairness or a crude kind of 'equality'. Indeed, the symbiotic relationship between Jews and blacks is based on Jewish business smarts and black rhythm & running. Jews are superior in one area, blacks superior in another. There's no scandal about Jews not making it as boxers and wide receivers, so why is there such outcry about blacks not making it as business moguls or top physicists?

Steve Sailer: "On the other hand, it’s not as if the lowbrow leftists like Ta-Nehisi Coates are losing politically and economically."

Coates is not a leftist but a black tribalist who uses leftish-sounding socio-babble to gain more for his race, especially for himself. When has he, or the Kendi Man, ever griped about the inequality faced by Palestinians? Just like Obama, they know they must flatter Jewish power while dumping on whitey to get their hands in the cookie jar. Calling black tribalists 'leftists' only muddles the issue. We can't have clarity unless we know the real name of the game.

Harden: 'One-drop' social rules have guaranteed that Americans who identify as being White are very unlikely to have any genetic ancestry that is not European, so in this case self-reported race and genetic ancestry appear to converge.

One thing for sure, one-word-rule has rendered the meaning of 'Latino' meaningless. Even brown people with little or no white blood count as 'Latino'(or is 'Latinx') because they speak Spanish. More than anything, this clouds the race issue.

Harden: "…race (unlike ancestry) is an inherently hierarchical concept that serves to structure who has access to spaces and social power."

Just about any concept is hierarchical because everything about mankind is hierarchical. This goes for 'class', 'sex', 'age', 'religion'(With God on our Side), 'nation', 'empire', and etc. 'Education' and 'Academia' are hierarchical too. Colleges are above high school, and elite colleges are above run-of-the-mill colleges. Big Business is bigger than small business.

Also, everything is a double-edged sword. Nationalism can be used as springboard for imperialism, but it can also be the battle cry against imperialism, like in the Cuban Revolution and the Vietnamese and Algerian struggles for independence. Race was invoked in the past to keep blacks down, but blacks used race as means of solidarity and unity. Indeed, why are blacks averse to adopting libertarianism and its emphasis on individualism? They know they can gain more pride, prestige, space, and social power by invoking race. 'Race' can be used as expression of supremacism('our race is better than yours' or 'our race has the right to rule over your race'), but it can also be used to gain and secure historical or social space('our race deserves to be free' or 'our race is deserving of dignity', or even 'our race has a right to preserve itself', which is the theme of Zionism in its national manifestation — Charlton Heston as Moses organized on the basis of tribe rooted in the blood covenant when he said "Let My People Go"). Likewise, 'sex' could be used to argue men should rule over women, but feminists have also built an ideology around it for their own 'space'.

It's often said the 'pseudo-scientific' concept of race is the product of 19th century imperialism(with roots in the Enlightenment and rationalism with its mania for classification). So, was mankind a happy lot prior to this Evil Concept? Maybe it wasn't so bad for the peoples conquered, pillaged, and raped by Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Vikings, and Romans because 'race' wasn't a hot ticket item back then? Will America's current racial problems go away if we do away with the concept of race? That's like saying greed and theft will go away if we do away with the concept of 'money' or 'profit'.

If race = imperialism, how does one account for the Spanish Conquest of the New World? It happened long before the 19th century invention of 'race'. The Spanish sent missionaries and converted the savages, and there was much race-mixing, but was that a happy affair? If anything, history suggests the denial of race can be used as a tool of imperialism. It's a denial of group identity, like when Golda Meir said there is no such people or culture as 'Palestinian'; and the Turks deny the existence of Kurds and refer to them as 'mountain Turks'. Using Harden's logic, one may ask, what right did the brown races have to defend themselves against white conquerors when, white or brown, they're all just the same, part of the same human species?
Come to think of it, one way to resolve the racial issue in America is by arguing that the white race didn't really enslave the black race since race doesn't exist. Rather, some people who thought they were white enslaved some other people who thought they were black, but in truth, they were all just people. So, the racial angle of the narrative was pure fantasy. In truth, it was just a case of some people enslaving some people. Therefore, just as it had been wrong for whites to regard themselves as whites lording over blacks, it's about time blacks stop seeing themselves as blacks done wrong by whites. It only furthers the illusion of race.

Now, one people who were long race-or-blood-conscious were the Jews. In contrast, Christians and Muslims were less so as their big theme was converting the souls of all peoples around the world. Now, which people, the Jews or the Christians/Muslims, were more aggressive, invasive, and imperialist? True, Jews joined in the empire-building, but it was on the backs of Christians and Muslims who sought to break through the barriers of race and blood to create a one-world community united before God the Lord. One result is Latin America, a very hierarchical place beset with countless social, political, and economic woes.
Come to think of it, if egalitarian ethos took deeper root in North America, it was precisely because it was more homogenously white, at least in the northern parts and Canada. Egalitarianism, though always out of reach, is easier to approximate with a homogenous population with a narrower range of talents. Easier among beagles than among greyhounds, beagles, pit-bulls, and chihuahuas.

Harden: "A closer look at the science of genetic ancestry makes it clear that 'race does not stand up scientifically, period.'”

The statement is true and untrue depending on how one defines race. And there are varying definitions. Using the stupidest definition of race, her statement would be true. But then, the current age has no problem with stupidity when it comes to sex or 'gender', which has also spawned the pronoun-craze where some dope claims he isn't only a 'she' but a 'they'. Such nonsense is accepted(and enforced) as 'science' in our age. If Harden means that the human species is far more complicated than the simple groupings of caucasian, negroid, and mongoloid, that's true enough. Bushmen are different from Bantu blacks. Tamils are exactly what? And though the American Indians originated from Asia, they seem to have evolved sufficiently into a new category. And Nazi racial science had its crazy side. But, any concept can be invalidated if defined by its falsities or stupidities. Nationalism can be anything from patriotism to jingoism. Love can mean love for the devil or the love of God, in which case 'love is love' is the stupidest idea imaginable.

Still, if she insists the concept of race is wrong because it's burdened with historical baggage, then give us a new term so we can use that instead. But while there's a lot of terminological violence in rejecting the term of 'race', there is terminological silence in coining a new concept. Why the timidity? I don't care if we shouldn't use 'race' anymore. Just give us any term that means the emergence/existence of different groups within the species as the result of tens of thousands of evolution and geographical and climactic separation. Unless such term is provided, no one should reject 'race' because it's the only term we have. Based on new scientific knowledge, what should be the new term for differences created by evolution? How about 'scatterin' as different races arose from organisms within the species scattering all around the world. White scatterin and black scatterin. Or just scats. ('Scat' means animal shit, but that's okay because people like Harden are full of shit. How about 'guano' for race?)

Harden: "…in reality, you could have it exactly backwards, and the genes that matter for education could be more common in the ancestry group with worse educational outcomes."

That'd be more likely in a socially discriminatory or orthodox order. If a group is smart but denied educational opportunities, it will have high IQ but lack in academic prizes. Or, if the group has smart people but is trapped in orthodoxy, like Jews who only studied the Talmud or Chinese who concentrated on Eight-Legged Essays, it will under-achieve in many areas. Evangelicalism and Creationism probably suppressed intellectual achievement among certain Christian groups.

But the problem of inequality in the West is mostly the result of genetic differences. Once discrimination was ended and all groups adopted modern modes, winners and losers were largely chosen by genetics.

Harden: "For example, we now have a polygenic score for predicting the highest level of education attained. In the latest iteration announced this month, using a sample size of 3 million, those in the highest decile were nine times more likely to graduate from college than those in the lowest decile. It works pretty well for whites in the U.K., America, and New Zealand. It works less well for East Asians and worst of all for African-Americans."

East Asians are so education-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in studies regardless of other factors. The ant-attitude defines their outlook. In contrast, blacks are so fun-focused that many more of them than whites will engage in letting the good times roll. The grasshopper attitude prevails among them. In contrast, being neither intensely ant-like or grasshopper-like, whites tend to divide more naturally between those with ant-tendencies and those with grasshopper-tendencies.

Steve Sailer: "Charles Murray... as Frank Sinatra used to say about Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life."

Bad example as Sinatra's character was brainwashed to say that about someone whom he actually loathed.

Sailer: "Seriously, Murray is obviously a superb individual."

Maybe he's a nice guy, but the nicest guy can have evil ideas while a nasty person can espouse humane ideas. What is better? A kindly devil or a mean angel? So, even as Murray's critics may concede he's a nice person, they can still find his ideas to be abhorrent. But this applies to people on the Left as well. Some Stalinists were nice kindly people as individuals.

At any rate, it doesn't matter how nice you are in a theocracy. If you blaspheme God, you are agent of the Devil even if you're the nicest person in town. In the current ideocracy, blacks are magical, and it's heretical to say they are deficient in any way, or if they are, it's all the fault of evil whites. So, no matter how nice or kindly Murray may be, he can only be a blasphemer in the eyes of the establishment.

The real problem is Murray's weakness. Why is he nice to people who hate him? Niceness is a virtue when shown to those who appreciate the gesture. It is a worthless vice when extended to those who hate you and mean you harm. Be nice to those who are nice to you, be mean to those who are mean to you. But Murray is nice to his enemies. Worse, he's nicer to people who mean him harm than those who are willing to lend him an ear. He'd rather suck up to Neocons than side with people like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor(who has problems of his own in cucking to Jews). Murray is a fuddy-dud with 'dangerous' ideas, which means he lacks the cojones to see his ideas to their conclusion. In that, he has something in common with Harden who admits certain things but draws all the wrong conclusions. Murray keeps hoping and pretending that his ideas are compatible with individualism and libertarianism(and with 'respectable society') when they're not. Murray's ideas are rebellious but he plays it respectable, which makes him a fool.

Sailer: "She and Murray disagree over the meaning of 'virtue.' Harden’s New Testament-inspired egalitarian utopianism, in the tradition of political philosopher John Rawls, sees no virtue or merit in a pilot (such as her father) having excellent pilot traits."

She is right, at least partly, on the matter of virtue. If talent or skill = virtue, O.J. Simpson would be a saint. In a way, the problem with the US, no less among the 'woke' than among the 'based', is the delusion of conflating success, especially associated with celebrity and fame, with virtue. People look to athletes and pop stars for 'wisdom'. Conservatives are giddy that the rapper 50 cents be complaining about taxes and thinking of moving to Texas. And then, there was the thing with the vile Nikki Minaj. She went on a rant about her cousin's balls and became an instant hero to the anti-vaxxer crowd.

There is value in meritocracy per se that rewards people based on talent and hard work, but a person's intelligence or professional success doesn't guarantee virtue, even though one can say work ethic is a virtue compared to sloth. The US deep state has lots of of smart and diligent people, but they don't seem very virtuous when it comes to honesty, honor, truth, and justice. When one of them, Edward Snowden, blew the whistle on government abuses, the elite consensus was to totally destroy him.

Perhaps, meritocracy is more about fairness than virtue. It is externally applied and neutral in its lack of a priori favoritism. It observes and chooses for superior talents regardless of other factors. It's like the referee in sports mustn't favor either athlete and must be neutral in rewarding points and penalties based purely on performance. If a lowlife son-of-a-bitch is more skilled than a truly nice fellow, meritocracy favors the former.
But all social orders have sacraments and taboos that make absolute meritocracy impossible. Even a super bright kid will not be admitted to Ivy League if it turns out he said unkind things about Jews, blacks, or homosexuals. In the past, one's reputation could be destroyed if one badmouthed Jesus or is a homosexual. So, the rules change over time, and these rules will favor official norms and dogma over absolute meritocracy. So, success isn't determined only by merit of talent but correctness of creed.
Today, anyone who supports BDS or sympathizes with Palestinians won't gain much success in the elite realm. He will be shut out by the establishment that mainly caters to Jewish supremacism. Imagine any writer or director proposing a movie about the plight of Palestinians. He or she will be blacklisted on the spot and for as long as Jews control Hollywood and the media. Jewish power and wealth were built largely on meritocracy of intelligence and hard work, but Jews also use non-meritocratic means to keep their perceived enemies and rivals from gaining ground. To succeed in today's world, you must bow down to the Jewish-favored creed.
In the past, many Jews had to convert to Christianity to rise up the social ladder. Today, Jews control the gods, and one has to worship the rainbow-homo(as Jews replaced Christianity with Queertianity) to gain access to the Deep State, Big Business, and the like.

Even sports are not purely meritocratic because there's a thing called sportsmanship, i.e. even a great athlete can be penalized for un-sportsman-like behavior. Or he can be expelled from the league for saying unkind things about Zionists who terrorize Palestinians.

Unlike mere fairness(of meritocracy), virtue goes the extra mile and is essentially an internally generated trait. Instead of merely being fair with mankind, it wants to do more to be a better person and/or to make for a better world, sometimes in a self-sacrificing way.

To be sure, meritocracy can be an internally generated goodness, a virtue, in a world where success mostly depends on connections and corruption. If one personally chooses to be meritocratic in such a system, he is going against the tide, going the extra-mile to be a good person. That would be virtue. But in a system where meritocracy is taken for granted as the rule, all it can do is pick and choose winners and losers based on a narrow set of talents. It's about ability then ethics.

Harden: "A lottery is a perfect metaphor for describing genetic inheritance: the genome of every person is the outcome of nature’s Powerball."

Harden is one big idiot. That's the dumbest thing I ever read. The human equivalent of powerball lottery would be if someone is super-beautiful, super-healthy, super-personable, super-leadership-qualitied, super-intelligent, super-athletic(and in all sports from weightlifting to swimming to high jump), super-creative(in music, poetry, and act), and etc. Powerball is about one in a million, or ten million, or hundred million.
Human competition is far more mundane and general. Most people are content to excel in one thing or another. For the vast majority, genetics means having just enough decent genes to finish college, have a nice job, and retire with saving. Powerball-thinking is for likes of Elizabeth Holmes, the too-good-to-be-true nutter, who wanted it all.

Genetics is more like a slot-machine, a rigged one at that. Pull on the genetic lever of a smart man and smart woman, and you're more likely to get a smart kid. Pull on the genetic lever of a dumb man and dumb woman, and you're more likely to get a dumb kid. Of course, smart parents can produce dumb kids, and dumb parents can product smart kids, but genetics means that the game is rigged based on parentage.
Genetics would be more like a lottery in the manner of Rev. Mhoon, that is by randomly pairing dummies with smarties in a mass wedding ceremony. But it's generally not the case that smart women marry some fat guy whose ass crack shows when bending over.

Sailer: "Harden propounds a sophomoric view that intelligence is 'socially valued, not inherently valuable,' and follows that up with a conspiracy theory that early-20th-century eugenicists plotted to get us..."

Harden is correct in the strict evolutionary sense. Every trait has value in relation to the environment. A shark's fins are perfectly engineered for the ocean but useless on land. A chimpanzee's high IQ isn't going to do it any good in the middle of an ocean. A low-IQ fish with gills has infinitely better chance of survival.
And even among human societies, the value of intelligence depends on the culture and social setting. While it's good to be reasonably intelligent in any setting, high IQ would have been useless in most societies through history(and especially pre-history). A strong man who could chuck spears and fight rough was more valued. An Einstein or Plato would have been useless to the Vikings or Zulus.
Extreme high IQ has value only in advanced civilizations with freedom that allows for such trait to explore and express itself. And even though all societies, even the simplest, have recognized the difference between smart and dumb, admiration for high IQ began to matter only with the emergence of advanced societies that capitalized on genius.

But Harden is probably not speaking strictly in an evolutionary sense but to virtue signal that she's more about the heart than brains.

Harden: "…to see intelligence (as measured on standardized IQ tests) and educational success, perhaps more than any other human phenotypes, in terms of a hierarchy of inferior and superior persons is not an accident. It is an idea that was deliberately crafted and disseminated..."

The more a society becomes competitive and achievement-oriented, this becomes inevitable. After all, is a great civilization possible without identifying winners from losers? Jews had their Rabbinical studies. Chinese had their Confucian exams. The Greeks were more multi-faceted as they prized not only intelligence but creativity, athletics, and beauty, which is why they were so foundational in the many pursuits that came to define the West and then the World.
But the Greeks also adopted Christianity, and their highest sense of good came to be piety. Christian piety is less enamored of and even hostile to beauty(vanity), intelligence(skepticism & egotism), athletics(brutality), and creativity(sensuality). Its emphasis on humility would seem anti-superiorist but actually provided yet another opportunity for superiority: holier-than-thou-ism.
On the one hand, Harden works in the Galileo-an world of high IQ science, but on the other, she is a member of new church of PC pieties. And just like Christianity, the new theology of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity has its own superiors and inferiors. The superiors are the Good Good People who repeat the fashionable sacraments(and favor Jews, blacks, and homos uber alles) while the Bad Bad people are those who dare to spout heresies and should be burned as witches. Bad Bad people are also those who support BDS and call for justice for Palestinians who are being 'genocided' by Zionist supremacists.

Now, is the US excessively concerned with IQ and success? If anything, many have griped that the problem of America is anti-intellectualism, populist vulgarity, blissful infantilism, and obsession with sports and pop culture than with science, math, and mental stuff. In any high school, the nerds and geeks are ignored while jocks and 'popular kids' get most of the attention. Judging by mass culture, Americans mainly seem interested in trashy personalities and pop stars. Most Americans would rather watch two women beat the crap out of each other in MMA than read a book by Harden or any female scientist. Also, colleges have been dumbed down over the years. It panders to popular tastes, and for all I know, they're teaching rap poetry in colleges. The rap musical HAMILTON became cause celebre among the elites. That Donald Trump became the champion of so many Americans doesn't say much about their intellectual curiosity either. But is he cruder than HAMILTON or the likes of Lena Dunhum promoted by the elites? Go on youtube, and the videos that get the most views are stupid or trashy as hell, or just plain dumb.

The problem with Americans is they love success and money, which is usually the product of high IQ and diligence, but prefer to conflate success and money with something else. The appeal of Rock/Rap culture is the bad boy wins the girls, drives the fancy cars, and wears all the bling. Bruce Springsteen sang about high school dropouts, rebels, and road-busters, the kind of people who lose in life or end up dead. But he became very rich. Most blacks who emulate rap culture end up dead or in jail, but blacks love the idea of the rich gangsta.
In Arthur Miller's DEATH OF A SALESMAN, Willi Loman's delusion is that success comes by way of the hustle, a firm handshake and likability. Of course, such things matter, but it also requires hard work and real ability. Americans want to believe style should be sufficient for success. Substance is too boring and lame. Success is usually the product of intelligence and hard work, but that's too nerdy or geeky for the American Myth of John Wayne, Elvis Presley, and 50 Cents.

Harden says the less intelligent deserve more help, but that isn't the real problem, especially among blacks. The problem is blacks are soul-corrupted and rebuff any sound advice about what they should do. They find hard work and diligence 'lame' or 'white'. They want success to come with style alone or in sports. But how many blacks can make it to the NBA or NFL? (Black culture in the documentary HOOP DREAMS is surely telling, which is to say depressing.) Has anyone asked Harden, "How can you help people who don't appreciate sound advice?" The forgotten white working class is more likely to respond to constructive advice, but their livelihoods have been outsourced globally. Worse, it is evil for whites to care for fellow whites, not least because Jews demand that whites expend all their energies supporting the Zionist tyranny over Palestinians.

Now, there is a segment of Americans who are IQ-and-success-obsessed, and they are the elites(who are 95% Democratic). Elite parents do everything to make their kids go to elite schools or gain favors through connections — how George W. Bush got to be president, how Hunter Biden isn't in jail but selling junk art for $500,000. The rise of PC partly owes to these parents not wanting to jeopardize their kids' chance at success. They tell their kids to toe the line or else lose it all. Harden is surely part of this IQ-and-success-obsessed class. And these people do everything to gain more wealth and privilege.

But they don't want to admit that they are so focused on themselves and their class; therefore, even as they do everything to win and collect more prizes, they create this bogeyman of the 'racist' to fool the world(and themselves) that THEY are warriors for equality. But in fact, the likes of Jared Taylor and even Charles Murray have zero power in media and academia. All of the establishment elites are ideologically on the same page as Harden. So, if she's honest, she will admit that the most IQ-obsessed people are the so-called 'liberals', her colleague and peers. But instead, she paints herself as a humanitarian fighting an uphill battle against dragon-monsters like Murray. She is really punching down, but because the White Male used to be on top, she relies on historiography to pretend she's punching up against the Eternal White Male Patriarch Oppressor.

Even if Charles Murray and his ilk(and all MAGA people) vanished into the thin air this very second, the problems associated with race, IQ, success, inequality, and etc. would exist just the same among blacks, browns, and whites like Harden... like in San Francisco and Madison Wisconsin, totally libby-dib cities. Indeed, without the racist-as-bogeyman, people like Harden would finally have to face the music and offer a solution to the race problem. THAT would be difficult. But as long as her ilk claims to be fighting the big-bad-white-bogeyman, they can say their hands are tied at the moment and can't really address the problem yet.

If people like Harden are really serious, there is actually a solution. Offer more affirmative action slots for blacks in medicine, law, accounting, and other fields. And then, make sure these white 'progressive' types call on affirmative action talent for service. Need a brain surgery? Make sure it's a black doctor who got his license through AA. Need a corporate lawyer? Get an AA black guy. With so many rich progressive types, this should solve the problem. They got the money to sustain so many black professionals of AA pampering. And why should they complain? They are the ones who say there should be more 'inclusion' and that blacks are just as intelligent, capable, and diligent as any other race. They wouldn't want to be 'racist', would they?

DIS-UNITED STATES: WHY IDENTITY POLITICS ARE THE FUTURE - Black Pigeon Speaks

Meritocratic Fallacy — Choosing the Brightest doesn’t necessarily choose the Best — Problems of Symbolic Morality over Real Morality among the Powerful

In the most basic sense, meritocracy is the fairest and most effective way of selecting the most capable. This is most obvious in sports. The fastest runner is the fastest runner. Fastest swimmer is the fastest swimmer. The heaviest-lifter is the heaviest-lifter. We can’t argue with the results. But, we also know that the most capable are not necessarily the best in terms of morality and character. We know that many top athletes are scummy lowlifes. Who can forget the saga of OJ? Still, there is an idolatrous aspect to our nature that wants to believe that the most talented, most skilled, or most able is also the best in character. This is why most action movies have heroes who are not only the best-looking but the toughest. There is an idealized combination of attractiveness, ability, and morality. Good guys look good and are really the best. The handsome hero of SHANE really is the fastest gun in the West. Even so, we don’t expect too many athletes or some such to be paragons of morality and ethics. (But then, in our nihilistic age, many thug athletes and rappers are admired precisely because they spit on norms of morality and decency.)

But what about the elites in law, academia, government, enterprise, and media? Unlike athletes who merely need to prove their mettle in brute strength, people who succeed with their minds must gain knowledge, attend prestigious schools, and demonstrate worth on many levels of human relations. Because education is about the teaching of history, literature, science, ideas, and culture, we would like to believe that those who won by intellectual meritocracy are indeed the best kind of people. Not only the smartest but the wisest and most judicious. After all, they read so many books and gained so much knowledge. Unlike sports where brutal performance is all that counts, academics isn’t only about getting good grades but attaining higher and deeper understanding of many facets of truth. Or so we like to think.

Now, there are certain inbuilt virtues within meritocracy itself. Any serious student must have the simple virtues of effort, diligence, discipline, commitment, and stamina. Without such habits and attitudes, one cannot do well in school(unless one happens to be a super-genius). But simple virtues are just that. They are useful in the service of attaining certain goals, but they don’t reveal the higher truth or deeper meaning. After all, simple virtues can be in the service of an evil system. Dutiful and sober men can work hard to support the system. The men in the German film DAS BOOT are high in simple virtues. They are men of commitment and patriotism. But they ultimately serve an evil system.

Higher virtue arises from the question of "What kind of power am I serving?" The main character of LIVES OF OTHERS is a hard-worker and has simple virtues. But for most of his life, he never asked whether what he is doing is worth doing. He's been a ‘good soldier’ who followed orders and did his duties. He has simple virtues but is blind to the full moral implications of his work... until something alters the course of his life.

This is worth keeping in mind because there is no guarantee that those who study hard really care about anything but status, privilege, and power. They may read books, do homework, pass exams, go to good schools, get degrees, and get good jobs, BUT they may not have cared about truth, justice, or meaning. Education for them was just a means of gaining credentials to have the Good Life. They are like the vapid yuppies of AMERICAN PSYCHO(horrible movie).

Now, one may argue that the very process of education will change a person. Surely, no matter how cynical or materialistic one may be, wouldn't he be moved, inspired, and transformed by the great knowledge that he absorbs from literature, history, psychology, humanities, and maybe even some courses on philosophy?
True enough, but then, is there a lasting impact of education on most people? Consider Billy Boy Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Two high-IQ people who read many books and attended top colleges. Then, why are they so shallow, cynical, scummy, vile, stupid, trashy, hideous, insipid, and despicable? What did they really learn from all those books and all those courses? Despite their high intelligence and credentials, why are they so lacking in ethics, conscience, virtue, balance, wisdom, and basic sanity? We would like to believe that people so smart who went to top schools and learned from the best professors and read many more books than we did would be people of genuine worth. But it seems the ONLY thing they ever cared about was egotism, vanity, privilege, fortune, and fame.

So, what does that tell you? Meritocracy in academics may, more or less, choose the brightest but far from the best. In the 50s and 60s, there was the idea that the best-and-the-brightest were going to do wonderful things for America. But even as many such people were indeed the brightest, they were not the best(in character). Robert McNamara was the poster-child of the divergence of brightness and best-ness. And after the fiasco of the Vietnam War, he came to realize this and felt bad for the rest of his life. Well, at least he had a conscience about it. But look around today. So many people who have high IQ, went to best schools, got the credentials, and were chosen for high positions turn out to be total scum. And even after they destroy everything, there is no sign of conscience. Look at the intellectuals and officials around Billy Boy Clinton and George Dubious Bush. Look at the brightest bulbs around Obama who helped him destroy nations around the world.

Some of these people went to the best schools. They got credentials and prestige. And yet, they act like gangsters, sociopaths, degenerates, and monsters. And someone explain how any sane, sensible, and moral person can endorse something like Homomania? Indeed, consider that Jews have the highest IQ and got the most education. And yet they are the biggest proponents of degenerate Homomania that conflates homo fecal penetration and tranny pud-cutting with the ‘rainbow’ that is then associated with cookies, sodas, and churches. Did Jews gain so much knowledge to peddle that kind of nonsense?

It may be that some people of ability will gravitate toward power out of ideals. They hope to gain power to do what is good for the people and nation. But the system has a way of choosing the talented-and-vapid over the talented-and-valid.
After all, one thing that becomes apparent to anyone seeking power is that the path is compromised. Even as doors open to people of ability and talent, they must also kiss a lot of ass, compromise their principles, keep their mouths shut, spout platitudes, and learn to go along. Such are necessary in any social setting, but it either turns idealists into cynics or exiles. As cynics, they do gain power eventually but come to care for nothing but the power. As exiles from the corrupt system, they maintain their ideals or integrity but they gain no power.
Generally speaking, the system seeks talent-and-vanity than talent-and-integrity. Those with real integrity have a serious problem rising up the ladder of power because they must remain silent, tell lies, or dirty their hands. They must play the game and keep their mouths shut. The must accede to the 'omerta' not unlike in GOODFELLAS.

In contrast, those who are talented and mainly into power for vanity don’t care if they must make compromises and even embrace corruption. They just want to be among the Winners and Players. And this may account as to why so much of the Deep State has genuine deep talent but is so utterly shallow when it comes to ideals, ethics, scruples, and principles. The filtering effect of power tends to keep out those with integrity in favor of those who will say or do anything to gain power. So, we have a world of Samantha Powers, John Boltons, John Yoos, James Comeys, Donald Rumsfelds, Hillary Clintons, Dick Cheneys, Victoria Nulands, and other such scumbags who aren’t troubled in the least by all the mess they cause around the world. They just want to be with the Winners and play the game of power.

But actually it’s even worse than that. These lowlife scum and sleazebags are so full of themselves and think themselves noble, honorable, brilliant, and amazing. Those obsessed with privilege, status, and power tend to be narcissistic by nature. Also, they conflate meritocracy & credentials with morality & credence. Because they went to fancy schools and got fancy degrees and rubbed shoulders with 'respectable' peoples around the world, they think they are the best of the best. And because they often wield power above the law, they feel as if they’re imbued with divine powers of higher wisdom and understanding. So, while the rest of us should be judged by the law, they are above the law because they are so... special. Just like the hands of gods can’t be hampered by the laws of mortals, the power of the Deep State cannot be hamstrung by the banal laws of the hoi polloi, the ‘little people’. While such a view might be deemed as arrogant and corrupt, those in the Deep State believe it is their duty to be above the law because their role is SO VERY IMPORTANT. So, they tell themselves that they must bend and twist the law for a ‘higher loyalty’.
Also, there is the mostly compliant and complementary media that works with the Deep State. And there are think-tanks and the academia made up of pretty much the same kind of people, and they are all into "If you scratch my back, I will scratch your back." So, even though most people in the Deep State are really shallow, venal, and vile goons, there is a vast cottage industry to shower them with praises and prizes. Sometimes, it can be downright ridiculous, as when Obama awarded Joe Biden with the Medal of Freedom. Imagine that, the president giving the vice-president the award.
Perhaps, there might be more of a balance IF both parties were equally represented in the deeply entrenched institutions of Washington D.C., but the fact is the DC and the Deep State are now an almost entirely a one-party system where most people are into clone-think, worshiping the same icons and idols. Notice that Pompeo in the Senate questioning was asked about his views on ‘gay marriage’. Homomania is sacrosanct in all areas of the Deep State because the Jewish top dogs made it so. Because Homomania is considered sacred, it is easy for any sleazebag in the Deep State to signal that he too is part of the holy crowd. He needs only to wave the homo flag. Or spout off platitudes about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ or yammer something about how they are inspired by MLK and etc.

So, the system is rigged not only to favor the talented-and-unscrupulous but also to make the unscrupulous feel that they are moral paragons and agents on the side of angels. Without such manipulative psycho-mechanisms, members of the Deep State will just feel utter cynicism as gangsters, crooks, and liars. Such people cannot maintain morale for long.
So, the secret of the Deep State is to attract those without scruples but to make them feel that they are the most scrupulous. We see these traits in sleazebags like John Brennan and James Comey. Both are hollow men, empty suits when it comes to principles. They are pathological liars and crooks who will pull anything to serve the interest of the Deep State. BUT they sincerely believe themselves to be on the side of angels BECAUSE the system showers praise on those who stick with the Official Narrative and Sacred Cows of the Current Year.
People like Edward Snowden cannot go very far in the System because they have too much of a conscience. Comey may claim to have a ‘higher loyalty’, but it really means his loyalty is to the Deep State. In contrast, Snowden had a deeper loyalty to an idea of justice. He spilled the beans on the Deep State and, as such, paid a huge price. The system praises the Comeys and McCabes of the world while trying to destroy people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who see the need for transparency in the Deep State of the lone superpower that, since the Cold War, has grown ever more arrogant, aggressive, and demented.

It is the logic of power. Power wants those of ability who will serve the system loyally. Power wants technocrats and commissars than truth-seekers and idealists. But the Power also needs to maintain the morale(if not true morality) of its servants by making them feel that they are on the right side of history.
It was the same in communist nations. The system obviously wanted yes-men and sycophants who would never ask too many questions. But the goons also had to be convinced that they were the most virtuous because, without such conceit, they might just grow awfully cynical and operate only as gangsters. The system wants dogs that believe in the nobility of service to the master.

This isn’t easy to do because the Power(of whatever nation or ideology) is always corrupt, compromised, and dirty. It is very difficult to get close to power and keep one’s principles. It may be that idealists hope to gain power to do good, but by the time they’ve come close to power, they’ve become the dirty Power. Imagine a Broom that is to be used to clean up society. But to get to the Broom, one has to wade through all the filth. By the time one finally gets to the center to wield the broom, one is as dirty as the former holders of the broom. And there is the realization that the broom itself is so dirty that using it will only spread than clean the filth.
This is how the Boomer generation idealists all turned out. It’s a sad story really. Those who loathed Richard Nixon became worse than Nixon. And their main reason for going after Donald Trump, no saint himself, is because Trump, despite his own sleaziness and filth, poses a threat to the ways of the Deep State, for which Hillary was like the Queen Bee to protect and serve. To the Deep State drones, Trump is like a bear that messes up the Deep State honeycombs. Trump’s victory sent out a massive signal among the drones to bring back Hillary and kill Trump. So, he’s been stung from many sectors of the Deep State.

Because the Power is so corrupt and compromised, the most effective means by which it instills drones with a sense of righteousness and holiness is by promoting symbolic morality, which is so much easier than real morality. Symbolic morality is characterized by icons, idols, mantras, rites, and rituals.
It was always easier to be a symbolic Christian than a real Christian. A real Christian had to seriously regard the teachings of Jesus, examine one’s own failings, sincerely seek redemption, and seek personal salvation in the eyes of God. In contrast, a symbolic Christian merely needed to wear a Crucifix, hold a rosary, say a bunch of ‘Hail Mary’s, and attend certain services. Michael Corleone is no real Christian in THE GODFATHER, but he is a good symbolic Christian who donates generously to the Catholic Church and attends the ritual that makes him godfather to his sister’s child. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church came to favor symbolic Christianity over real Christianity, which found new hope with Protestantism, which, however, also succumbed to new concoctions of rituals and symbolism... or just grew tired because how can spiritual movement define itself as a ‘protest’ forever when it’s become so deeply entrenched in the Order and the Power.

Anyway, symbolism means never having to say you’re sorry. So, never mind if you were one of the Teutonic Knights in Russia or Crusaders in the Holy Land. Never mind all the brutality and violence you carried out. Never mind all the un- or anti-Christian acts you’ve committed. As long as you stick to symbolic Christianity, you can tell yourself that you carried out the will of God. After all, your battle shield had a sign of the Cross. And before charging into battle, you knelt and held your sword like a Cross and prayed to God. You might have even sung a hymn with other warriors. And after sacking the city and raping women and killing children, you may have offered a prayer to God in a Church. Thus, by making the symbolic gestures, you can feel blessed and righteous in your violence. And you can conveniently forget that so much of what you did went against REAL CHRISTIAN teachings.
This is why symbolism is so appealing. Consider the studio executive in HAIL CAESAR! by the Coen Brothers.

In many ways, he acts like a gangster and henchman. He is ruthless, cunning, and not above using bribes and blackmail to keep people silent. He’s about making the system run smoothly as possible. And yet, he feels himself to be a good man. Why? He goes to Church and make confessions before a priest. Of course, it’s about trivial stuff like his failure to stop smoking, but the rituals makes him feel as a man of God.

The Deep State is secular but paves over its gangsterism, corruption, and venality with its own version of Symbolic Morality. Gee, the New and Improved FBI must be noble because its agents must make a pledge to the MLK statue. James Comey thinks himself a goody-good man because he compares himself to the attorney in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. And he must be a goody-good man because Obama, the historic black president, showered him with praise. It’s all symbolism. Never mind Obama the real guy is a sleazebag who shilled for Jews to bail out Wall Street and to destroy nations hated by Jews or Israel. He has magical aura because of the symbolism of being the ‘clean cut black guy’ and the ‘historic first black president’. So, never mind what he really is. Just fixate on what he symbolizes. He’s supposed to represent the fulfillment of the Dream that was cut short by the death of JFK, Malcolm X, RFK, and MLK. He’s supposed to be all those things, with a touch of Sidney Poitier-ness. In reality, what was Obama but a punk? As president, what was his idea of moral progress? Worship of homos and trannies. And what was his foreign policy? The destruction of nations at the behest of Judeo-Nazis.
We’ve heard the counterculture mythology many times that the Vietnam War and the Cold War could have been averted IF John F. Kennedy, MLK, and RFK had not been killed by the evil Deep State. How ironic that Obama, the fulfillment of the Dream, started a ‘new cold war’ with Russia, spread wars all over the Middle East, pulled off a coup in Ukraine, and became a compliant favorite of the Deep State. But never mind all that. Just focus on the symbolism.

The emptiness of symbolic morality can be seen in James Comey’s wife. She was a Hillary supporter and was so very angry over Hillary’s loss because she so badly wanted a ‘first woman president’. Again, it’s symbolic morality over real morality. Never mind what Hillary Clinton really did as Secretary of State. She acted like a gangster and did the bidding of the EOJ(the Empire of Judea) to destroy Libya and spread terror and war all over the Middle East. Millions of people had their lives destroyed as a result. Never mind her long history of corruption. Never mind her total lack of scruples. Never mind her arrogance, contempt, and vileness. The only thing that matters to Comey’s vapid, shallow, and disgusting wife is that Hillary would have been the ‘first woman president’. So, her symbolism trumps all other considerations.

This is how PC operates. It has no use for real morality or truth. Rather, it icon-izes or idolizes certain groups as magical, special, or deserving. So, if the military promotes a black woman to the rank of general, that must be good because of its symbolism. Never mind if she really deserved the title or if she, along with everyone else, is being used to fight immoral Wars for Israel. Or consider how we were supposed to praise Trump's decision to lob missiles into Syria in 2017 because a female naval officer was involved in the operation. PC symbolic morality. A feminist soldier pushed a button, so it must have been a blessed act.

Or, never mind how corrupt and sick the Deep State is. Hey, it appointed some holy homo to some important position. It is a game played by both sides. So, the vile GOP goes for the symbolic morality of being the best friend of Israel. Since Jews are supposedly the Holy Holocaust People and Israel is the Holy Land promised to Jews, the GOP is supposedly righteous and moral whenever it is associated with the symbolism of Jewishness. When morality shifts from a matter of personal responsibility and individual conscience to rites and rituals of symbolic signaling, society becomes as corrupt as when the Catholic Church was selling ‘indulgences’. Once sin was altered from a reality to a ‘symbol’, it could be bought and sold, like commodities in a stock market. (It is all the more dangerous today because the most powerful group in the US, the Jews, cannot be touched. In contrast, while past Wasp elites held much pride and prestige, they were not seen as holy, and therefore, it was fair game to notice their power and call foul on it. This had a restraining and reforming effect. But try to speak truth to Jews, blacks, and Homos. It'd be like sacrilege since they are the Holy Three.)

James Comey is a sleazebag but thinks himself so holy-shmoly because the ‘historic black president’ anointed him. And his wife thinks she’s such a noble person because she so passionately wanted a ‘first woman president’. Never mind that they are preening and privileged members of a vile, venal, mendacious, and murderous community that concocts policies to turn the world upside down at the behest of Judeo-Nazis and soulless corporations, the bottom line of which is more profits-at-any-cost. As long as they got the Proper Symbolism, they don't care. They think they own goody-goodness.

We have a pretty effective way of meritocracy. Despite the problems of Affirmative Action, for the most part the System does a pretty effective job of selecting and pooling the best in talent. But it has done an atrocious job of favoring the ethical-talented over unethical-talented. If anything, the Power tends to push away anyone with any integrity, honesty, and true morality based on facts. Political Correctness or PC has made this problem much worse. Though ostensibly an agent of justice, its dogmatic formula of predetermined Right and Wrong means that everyone just stick to the script, not unlike in Communist systems where people could not question the ‘scientific’ and ‘moral’ infallibility of Marxism-Leninism itself.
PC makes it very difficult for anyone in the academia, media, and government to speak honestly about Jewish Power, black pathology & crime, homo degeneracy, and female hysteria. PC morality is essentially symbolism-centered around icon-ized identities of holy victimhood. So, Jews are eternal victims of Holocaust. Blacks are sacred victims of slavery, and MLK is bigger than God and Jesus. Homos are angels, and if you say otherwise, you are a ‘homophobe’. And women, especially white women, are eternal victims of Evil White Men like Haven Monahan and must be protected from evil white men by... noble black man. ROTFL.

Reality is very different from the Sacro-Narrative and the Grand Delusion, but the power of symbolism can be such that it makes people hallucinate False Realities. Consider the symbolic power of the TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD narrative. America has changed so much since the 1950s, but we are still supposed to believe that redemptive white folks must do something to save poor helpless Negroes from the KKK lynchmob. While we live in the reality of the 21st century when so many white folks are suffering and being physically attacked by blacks, our sense of reality comes from Jewish-controlled TV and movies that define hyper-reality for us. Also, the False Reality of TV trespasses into our living room and smuggles PC symbolism into our brains while robbing us of our critical faculties, especially as TV shows rely as much on manipulative use of music and other visceral effects.

Thus, we have a world where meritocracy is rewarded ONLY IF it is without integrity. Consider journalism. What is the chance of anyone being hired IF he were to raise truly provocative questions about what is really going on? To work in journalism, one has to adhere to the PC rules of the Holy Three: Jews, Negroes, and Homos. (Women are holy ONLY IF they can be construed as victims of the Evil White Male, the Haven Monahans of the World.) The fact that David Reich had to close his book on DNA and racial differences with so much PC tripe goes to show that daring to speak the truth is like walking through a minefield. One wrong word, and you can be blown away and ruined forever.
This is really an immoral war on truth and liberty, but PC is seen as moral because of its symbolism. Once certain groups have been ‘sacralized’, facts and reason no longer matter. They are forever haloed in association with a certain event or condition in past history. So, Jews are Holocaust People no matter what they do. Even a black thug-rapist is a Holy Slave person. Even ‘hate hoaxes’ aren’t so bad IF in the service of spreading the message about the Holy Three. It’s like the Catholic Church wink-wink tolerated all those phony ‘miracles’ on grounds that they boosted hope among the faithful. 'Hate Hoaxes' might as well be called 'hate miracles'.

PC is really a form of virtue-vanity and, as such, is about empty calories. Indeed, fake virtue is worse than no virtue because it lulls us into thinking we do have virtue. But look at the modern world remade by the false virtue of PC. There is moral and cultural cancer all around resulting from the radical and mindless worship of everything Jewish, black, or homo OR with anything associated with nonsensical sanctimony about ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, which in reality, comes down to the crazy notion that all nations except Israel should welcome Invasion and Replacement by hordes of foreigners who come to leech off the wealth. Unless we can create a New Reality that combines meritocracy of ability with ‘ethicracy’ of truth and reason(backed up by courage and spine), there is no hope for the future.

A Rebuttal to Yan Shen’s Complaint about Betrayal of Meritocracy in Elite Colleges - The Failure of Modern Parenting, West and East - Why Should Alt Right & White Folks Care about Asians when 80% of them Voted for Obama & Hillary and Cheer on the Replacement of the White Race in the Nations of their own Ancestry and Making?

America’s Cultural Revolution- the Obsession with Self Esteem by Yan Shen: http://www.unz.com/article/americas-cultural-revolution-the-obsession-with-self-esteem/

Yan Shen: Although the incident was undoubtedly a source of amusement to many, to me the surreal confrontation highlighted not only just how deeply rotten modern day American culture had become, but also the clear extent to which East Asian and non-East Asian cultural values had diverged in the 21st century.

Values or strategies? People can have same values or ideology and still have different strategies and habits. So, that incident in the library doesn't necessarily mean East Asians have different values from what prevails in the West. It could be that they just have different outlooks, styles, and attitudes. Consider German Socialists and 'Russian' Socialists. Stalin once remarked that German Socialists tended to be punctual and disciplined. If you take an Italian communist and a German communist, they may have the same ideology and same 'values', but they will have different approaches and manners. The Italian communist is more likely to be like the guy in SWEPT AWAY.


So, there's no guarantee that difference in cultural norms means ideological divergence. If anything, even though East Asians are less likely to act wild and crazy(due to cultural and genetic factors), they are more likely to become PC and globalist. As diligent students, they will soak up all the PC taught in schools. Is it any wonder that so many Asian academics, journalists, and bureaucrats are pushing Maximum PC? Maybe that Pan guy in California is not the type to scream in a library, but he's for total censorship in the name of PC.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2018/04/04/california-democrat-dr-richard-pan-proposes-fake-news-bill-shut-internet-free-speech-censorship/
So, it's very possible that the Asian guy who asked for quietude in the library will become another Pan. After all, if he's studying so hard, what kind of materials is he reading? Unless it's math, hard science, or technology, he's likely to get a lot of PC. Also, much of indoctrination happens outside schools in music, movies, TV, and state-sponsored propaganda like celebration of Homomania. A lot of it happens subliminally by icon-izing certain images and symbols.

Yan Shen: A recent article by Wesley Yang derided the fact that in contemporary American society “therapeutic concepts of harm have metastasized to encompass what we all once understood to be the unavoidable vicissitudes of daily life.” His discussion focused on the increasing sensitivity of millennials, in particular highlighting the fault line separating minorities from whites. In my opinion, equating the problem with the political left misses the heart of the matter entirely. Left-wing political correctness is merely a symptom of the more insidious underlying disease, which as Amy Chua alluded to in her now infamous essay Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior, is the American obsession with self-esteem.

Both Yang and Yan are missing the point. These easily triggered 'snowflakes' were made that way by the System. Therefore, we have to focus on the Power at the center. It is essentially Jewish. Most people, even elite academics, have NO ideas or agency of their own. They are dogs, sheep, and sycophants.
The fault line that matters is between Jews and white gentiles. Now, most white gentiles don't feel this way, but Jews do feel this way. Prior to the rise of Alt Right and related movements, I almost never came across hostile views among white gentiles against Jews. Being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel was as American as Apple Pie. Things may be changing with (1) Alt Right and related folks waking up to JQ and (2) white leftists supporting BDS against what is increasingly seen as 'far-right' Israel that is cozy with the GOP.

At any rate, if white gentiles mostly want to welcome Jews as whites who happen to be Jewish, Jews have hostile feelings toward whites. In the past, this was more understandable because of naked discrimination, periodic pogroms, and the Shoah. People may feel fear and hostility when faced with oppression or obsessed with survival. But that was then, this is now. Today, Jews are addicted to supremacist power, and they fear whites not because whites are hostile or 'antisemitic' but because whites might wake up to how Jews have gone into supremacist mode and are pulling all sorts of dirty tricks in Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and etc. If whites were to withdraw support, Jewish supremacism cannot maintain itself. Indeed, what if whites wake up to how US foreign policy has been usurped by Jews to serve Jewish globalist hegemony. Because whites are still the majority, they are the group that Jews fear most. Not because whites are anti-Jewish but COULD become anti-Jewish.
Jews may be less fearful IF they'd risen in power gradually through a process of being morally vetted. Suppose Jews rose high not only through meritocracy but under moral scrutiny. Suppose the worst kind of Jews had been called out and removed by this process. But because of the Jew Taboo(centered on Shoah and other themes), it became impossible to be critical of any kind of Jewish behavior. So, not only smart decent Jews made it to the top but also nasty vicious lowlife Jews. After all, smarts alone don't mean a person has character. Surely, Bernie Madoff is much smarter than the average Joe, but his MQ or Moral Quotient is close to zero. And yet, he was allowed to rub shoulders with men of power and privilege. Even though it was obvious he was doing bad stuff, he was left alone and even protected... as long as he functioned as a cash cow for Jewish groups.

Now, it wouldn't have been so bad if GOOD Jews called out on BAD Jews, but even the better ones went with tribalism over other considerations. Thus, Jewish Power rose rapidly but without being vetted and filtered of really bad shi*. And this is across so many fields. Just how did that compulsive liar Sabrina Rubin Erderly get a gig at a major publication? She'd been caught lying in college journalism. But the red carpet was rolled out for her, and she wrote a big big lie for ROLLING STONE mag, and then the rest of the media(mostly owned by Jews) decided to push the nasty anti-white message. If not for the internet, maybe the whole fraud would have been covered up or sent down a memory hole.

Now, PC has spread far and wide. There is much anti-white vitriol among non-whites and even among 'goody-good' whites. But WHO were really behind this? Jews. And why? Because Jews want to paralyze whites with collective 'guilt'. Non-whites and goody-good-whites(the self-righteous supremacists and vanity-virtue sniffers) may sincerely believe in PC, but they didn't come up with it. It was injected into them by academia and media that are funded and controlled largely by globalists. And even the character of Leftism has changed over the years in accordance to "Is it good for the Jews?" Notice that class issues are mostly gone from what goes by the label of 'leftism' today. Notice that for much of Obama yrs, homo and even tranny issues took front seat and pushed blacks to the back.
As such, the term 'leftism' has no meaning. If something becomes pretty much the opposite of its original meaning, is it still that thing? If Christianity ends up worshiping Satan but still calls itself 'Christianity', is it still Christianity? Today's 'leftism' is LINO or Leftism-In-Name-Only. It is just a mental-putty molded in any way by the Glob Powers That Be.

Anyway, the main reason for anti-white animus of PC is not about historical justice or whatever. It's about Jewish supremacist need to tame and harness white power into a war horse that can be ridden by the Power of Zion. Just think. If white power is so evil, why are Jewish globalists so insistent on using the US military for attacking nations like Syria? Despite 'inclusion' of homos and diversity cult, the US military is still about white generals ordering lots of right-wing white guys with guns. When the US military attacks other nations, it often translates into White Guys with Guns and Bombs killing bushels of Non-Whites. Like in the movie BLACK HAWK DAWN, almost a remake of ZULU, what with heroic white guys fighting like Starship Troopers against hordes of jivers and mofos. Recently, the US military has been causing all sorts of havoc in the Middle East populated with People of Rag. But, do you hear about how 'racist' and 'white supremacist' this is? Imagine all those white guys with big guns blowing up cities inhabited by non-whites. Apparently, Arab Lives Don't Matter... unless there is a likely false flag report about how Assad is killing babies with a blend of Clorox and Aunt Jemima yellow cake powder. And notice that NO ONE in the US prog community is calling for anti-war marches against the never-ending US aggression in Middle East and North Africa.

The fact is most 'minorities' have no inherent animus against whites. Now, blacks may be the exception for both inferiorist and superiorist reasons. Blacks do have a bitter history of having lived under whites who said stuff like, "Hey ni**er, go pick me some cotton and fetch me some water." This made blacks feel inferior. But black animus is also a superiorist contempt for 'white boy'. Blacks be thinking, "We whup your ass, we shout louder than you, we hump your women, and you be a bunch of fa**oty ass cucks."

But most other non-whites have no reason to hate whites. Now, Mexicans have had this resentment thing because 'gringos' achieved so much more. You can see the difference between the Anglo and the Mexican in THE WILD BUNCH. Pike Bishop is always planning ahead and trying to figure things out. Mexicans just like to laugh, eat, and party if they got the power. Or, if oppressed, they just hunker down and eat tortillas and show no agency. Even the Mexican bandido is a more childish character, like in TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE or THEY CALL ME TRINITY. Because Mexicans don't have leadership qualities, they like to work for 'gringo' or Americano. Look at Guillermo the sidekick at Jimmy Kimmel Show. We are told that the US used to be a bad evil society in the past because of its racial stereotypes, but Guillermo is the biggest Mexican stereotype of the silly, squat, childlike, and docile dufusez.

Anyway, if whites were solidly in charge, Mexicans might feel resentment but no real animus against gringo. Mexicans look up to power, the big hombre. If Mexicans feel more anti-white hatred today, it's because they feel contempt for weakness. Even as Mexicans resented the Grande Gringo in the past, they also respected him. But now, Mexicans see the Blanco Cuckez and feel nothing but contempt. Also, as they lack intellectual or ideological agency, Mexicans will swallow any crap taught to them by schools. And what do schools teach? A trickle-down version of anti-white vitriol cooked up by Jews.

As for Asian immigrants, I don't think there was much anti-white hatred in the past. As with Mexicans, there was surely some resentment and feelings of inferiority. At one time, Big China lost wars to tiny UK. And US clobbered Japan real bad. Still, Asians came to the US because they respected what the Great White Man made. They weren't coming to play Indians or emulate blacks in Detroit(at least not the parents). But as Asians tend to be docile, teacher-pets, and drones, they mostly went along with whatever was taught them. US media and academia weren't so anti-white in the past. And Asian-Americans who grew up back then didn't turn out to be rabid PC tards.
But many of today's Asian students are rabid dogs of PC. They may not burn down cities or disrupt libraries... though if a bunch of blacks or 'radicals' make a scene, you will always find some yellow dogs following and shouting along because that's what dogs do.

But again, who made the media and academia so anti-white? Jews. And what is the main reason for Jewish anti-white vitriol? Jewish moral outrage at the historical crimes of whites? Really? If this is so and if Jews really believe whites must atone for their 'sins', why do Jews insist on whites support Wars for Israel in which whites end up killing bushels of non-whites? And why do Jews insist that white Americans support White European Jews in Israel who oppress brown Palestinians?

Also, if Jews are soooooo outraged by past crimes, why are they easy on Latin-American whites whose 'crimes' were much bigger than that of Yanquis? It's estimated that Spanish and Portuguese arrival in the New World spread diseases that killed 50 million out of 55 million natives. Also, there was much 'rape' of native women. Also, Latin American whites brought over many more black slaves. Brazil alone brought 10x the number of slaves that US brought. And it was Anglo-pressure that finally ended the Brazilian slave trade. And Mexico has long been a civilization where whites lorded over natives. The Mexican Civil War was more than twice as long as the American Civil War and over a million people died. But even after the reforms, Mexico has been a white-ruled society. But how do Jews regard white Hispanics? As 'people of color'. Why is this? Because Jews need them as allies against white Americans.

So,the real motivating factor of Jewish cult of 'justice' is not righting wrongs but securing Jewish supremacist power. Jews know that their supremacist power in the US(thereby the world) depends on whites serving Jews. Whites will serve Jews instead of themselves ONLY IF they remained stigmatized and paralyzed by guilt. Therefore, whites have been led to believe that any sign of White Identity or Interest is 'white supremacist'. In order for whites to be redeemed, they must serve OTHER peoples. And of course, whites end up serving Jews the most since it's most lucrative to do so. After all, redemptive whites who serve Jews will get lots of goodies like Joe Biden, Billy Boy Clinton, John McCain the Cuckaine, Marco Rubio the rubber-boy, and etc. After all, what do whites get atoning for their sins by serving Navajo Indians or fat Hawaiian natives who spend all day munching on Doritos and watching TV?

As for Amy Chua, her book is not about Chinese moms being superior. It's about the lesson that there is no single foolproof method in parenting. Her method worked with one girl, didn't work with the other. Also, upon visiting China, she remarked that Chinese students there lack something American students have and vice versa. At any rate, the Chinese system is hardly better. It's all about robotic mania for tests and good schools. Does anyone in Asia study to learn and to think? No, they only see education as ticket to career and status.
Now, this is also true in the West, but it seems more obsessive in the East. Also, because the main emphasis is on admission, students take it easy once they made it into an elite institution that is treated more like a club(or so it's been said of Tokyo University). It's no wonder that Asian universities get no respect. In Asia, the thing is to get INTO a good school than do real work in one. Bad attitude. Also, this status-elitism is destroying Asia with high suicide rates. Because status matters so much, those who don't make it would rather kill themselves than work at 'dirty, dangerous, and demeaning' jobs. As university attendance has become near-universal in some Asian nations, the overall effect has been to instill almost everyone with hipster-Confucian snobbery that they are too good to do any 'lowly' labor.

Or they'd rather move to the West and abandon their race/culture. Asian status-obsession is value-free. So, if a Chinese parents are ideologically conservative but their kid goes to a good school, has a fancy job, and becomes ideologically liberal, the parents will be happy because their kid made it to higher status... even though his ideology is opposite of theirs. So, in Asia, status is the main ideology. This is not a healthy society. It's all about status, approval, and snobbery. And because snobbery has been universalized in places like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, they are now dying nations. People will not get married or have kids unless they can be assured of social rank and raising kids who will do well in school and gain status. (In a way, Mexican-Americans have a healthier attitude to life. Less snobby.) With the entering of women into careers, this means even less jobs for men, and that means more difficulty gaining status. No wonder suicide rates are so high in East Asia. It's a sick society.

This 'tiger mothering' is a misnomer. It should really be called 'dog-mothering' where both the parent and kid act like dogs. The dog-mother will do anything to train her kid to be good doggy who will win prizes at the dog show. And the dog-student's main obsession is to gain status either by making lots of money or winning approval from PC powers-that-be. It's no wonder that the new crop of Asian journalists in the West are such servile dogs of PC, spouting the same crap as everyone else. Maybe Wesley Yang is a partial exception, but two chopsticks don't make a dinner.
What Asians need is Human-Mothering. American style of Altar-Parenting(offering one's kids on the altar of degenerate pop culture that is all about glory of crazy blacks, degenerate homos, and nasty Jews) is no good, but dog-mothering also sucks. Human-Mothering is best. Raise kids on Akira Kurosawa films, and the world would be a better place. It's like HIGH AND LOW. There is something higher than profits and status. There is a sense of humanity, and humanism is best served on the national level.


Heine said:
“As Western society becomes more individualistic, a successful life has come to be equated with having high self-esteem,” Heine says. “Inflating one’s sense of self creates positive emotions and feelings of self-efficacy, but the downside is that people don’t really like self-enhancers very much.”

Heine got it all wrong. The problem is the West has gotten LESS individualistic. It's gotten more 'INFANTILISTIC'. True individualism is about having freedom and taking responsibility for it. It's like characters in THE BIG COUNTRY. Now, those guys are into individualism. And Gregory Peck's character is about discerning right and wrong based on individual conscience. Now, Pike Bishop in THE WILD BUNCH is a criminal, but he too is a rugged individualist. It's about how even thieves must live by honor. It's about being a tough hombre in a rough world. And that kind of attitude once defined American individualism. It was hard and rugged, like in SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Even James Dean's character in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE was messed up because his father was too weak. He wanted his father to be like John Wayne and beat his spoiled namby-pamby butt.



People conflate idiotic obsession with pop culture(the stupid kind) with 'individualism' but it's really about boys and girls wanting to remain kids forever. So, we now have grownups whose main experience of culture is discussing comic book movies. We have women who turned muffs into muppet-shows in their 'resistance' to Trump. Children are not individualistic because they don't have the means to think for themselves. Even their brattiness is manipulated by adults. So, kids will watch a TV commercial and say, "Mommy, buy me, this, Mommy buy me that." They are dupes of advertisers. So, when adults don't grow out of childish mentalities, they fail to develop into true individuals. True individualism is about self-control and having agency and power over one's own soul, body, and thoughts.
But look at the rise of gambling that addicts adults to dumb slot-machines. Look at the spread of drugs where people need a hit of this or hit of that all the time to feel alive. Look at the spread of videogames where full-grown men spend hours pushing buttons on joysticks to kill imaginary dragons. This isn't individualism but infantilism. A true individual is curious and hardy enough to listen to other views. But today's 'snowflakes' shriek in horror or act like Bam-Bam(of the Flinstones) if what they hear goes against the PC goo-goo talk they got from cradle. Given the prevalence of Altar-Parenting that offered so many kids to the 2PCs of Pop Culture and Political Correctness, many parents have no meaningful relation with their kids. Kids think, "my parents are uncool" and identify with pop idols cynically engineered by the dirty entertainment industry. Parents regard their kids as offerings to the gods of Trash Culture, and the kids feel that the main role of parents is to feed, clothe, and house them until they can finally lead lives in imitation of TV characters like in GIRLS or SEX AND THE CITY or some other trash.

Was it individualism that led to the rise of Homomania? Was it individualism that led to all this hysterical waxing about BLACK PANTHER and the Afrotopia of Wakanda? No, only an infantile society where kids were drugged with PC and Pop Culture from cradle could create such a clown world.

What we need is true individualism. It means kids growing into adults and being responsible for their freedoms. But look all around, and we get babytalk from blacks, feminists, homos, and even Asians. Notice how these people are afraid to think or speak as real individuals. They speak in chant-ese and slogan-ese. Their ideo-vocab repeats the same terms over and over: 'racism', 'homophobia', 'misogynist', 'intersectionality', 'black lives matter', and etc. It doesn't even occur to these morons that the main purveyor of violence against women are black rappers who have contracts with Jewish moguls of music industry. These are infantile idiots whose main fixation is with feeling goo-goo-ga-ga-good. They are like babies who can't change their own diapers about peeing and pooing and go waaaaaaaaah. PC and Pop Culture clowns are like babies. When confronted with something that triggers them, they mentally pee and poo themselves and call on mommy, daddy, teachey, and policey to remove and ban whatever is 'triggering' them, goo ga ga.
But then, who made the kids this way? Those who control Pop Culture and PC.
The problem really began with boomers, the first ones to grow up with TV. Many of them grew up feeling closer to TV characters than to their parents. And then, the TV-kids grew up and became parents and had TV in every room,and their kids became even more TV-ed. And then, there was Cable TV with more dumb channels. Thus, parenting became all about offering kids to the altar of degeneracy.

But is it all that different in Japan, China, and South Korea. When the kids are not studying, what is the main source of their culture? In Japan, it's anime and videogames. In South Korea, it's K-pop and videogames. In China, pop culture is pretty retarded too, hardly less than in US and EU. So, parents push their kids to study, and when the kids are not studying, their experience of culture is junk. This is so different from the past when there was no TV and when movies were made for adults. If you were a Japanese student who was taking time off from studies in the late 50s or early 60s, you might have seen a Kurosawa film at the local theater. Now, the kids are watching dumb cartoons and playing video games. It's soulless. Look at the kids in BEIJING BICYCLE. What an empty cultural life.
Altar-parenting is killing civilization. But so many adults were raised on junk culture and think it's some kind of RIGHT and RITE for their own kids to go through the same junk-phase.

The reason why Pop Cultural Junk is worse than ever is because it's been so intertwined with PC. Though the idea of using Pop Culture as platform for political ideas is nothing new, it has now reached into all forms of expression. When I was a child, I used to read Archie's comic books, and they were just goofy fun. Though all arts & culture have some political subtext, there used to be a time when Pop was Pop. Because Pop was just Pop, you didn't take it too seriously. It was something you outgrew. Also, serious people didn't go into pop culture to spread ideas. They became serious authors, scholars, or artists.
It's different today. Young ones grow up with Pop Culture that is packed with ideological stuff. So, Archie sacrificed his life to protect a fruity politician.

If in the past, Pop was something you were supposed to outgrow, today kids regard Pop Culture as sacred text for Moral Truths and Political Consciousness. So, Pop sticks to them like brain tattoos. Why abandon Pop and kiddie entertainment when 'higher' moral and political truths can be gleaned from them? The New STAR WARS is dumber than ever, but the cultural commentariat is treating it like canonical stuff for the ages. And when NYT runs op-eds about the profundity of Wakanda, we are living in some fantasy world. We are no longer reading but living in BRAVE NEW WORLD.

In the past, college was where you went to put away childish things and got some real knowledge about serious stuff. But youth culture dominates most colleges. The music culture of most young ones is infantile rap and other crap. Also, smartphones have fostered a culture of distractions. So, colleges now dumb people down, not just intellectually but culturally.

Feminism was always ridiculous, but there used to be real intellectuals in the movement. Now, it's just about some fat woman with green hair and steel through her nose yammering about intersectionality with Muslims while wearing a pussy costume. It's like Teletubbies or muppet show.
And then, the rise of 'gay' gender studies made it even worse. At least women are half the world. Homos are 2% and trannies are far less than 1%. But because gender studies showered so much attention on them, this was bound to have a Peter Pan effect because (1) homos are vain and prefer fantasy over reality, therefore their impact on ideology and pop culture was to make us favor frivolity over essentiality (2) trannies are like homos, only more so. Homo fantasy's influence on feminism was to make it even sillier. Feminists in the past were about being free of pop cultural influences that turned women into silly idols. It went too far, but given the sheer inanity of pop culture, it had a salutary effect. But then, homos gain greater cultural influence, and they just luuuuuuv fantasy and artificiality. They promote vanity, narcissism, and artificiality. And this impacted feminism, and women are acting like degenerate teenyboppers of Peter Pan. They've become immersed in the celebrity-centric stupidity of pop culture largely fashioned and propped by homos.
With Jewish media and academia having promoted and spread homomania all over, even straight people are raising their kids to be reverential to homos and trannies. This Peter-Pan-izes the kids because homo culture is essentially Michael-Jacksonish.
Moreover, our pop culture is totally confused. If homomania encourages boys to be effete cucky metro-sexual dorks, Rap music encourages them to be thugs and see women as 'bitchass hos'. Also, rap attitude is one of ignorance + arrogance. It's about hatred of curiosity, humility, discovery, and maturity. It tells 13 yr olds that they know everything if they holler rhymes where everything is a 'motherf***er' and if they threaten others with fists or guns. Rap sensibility stunts the soul at around the age of 13. If Rap music becomes one's main cultural mode, forget about emotional development or mental curiosity. Punk had a similar impact on British youths in the 1970s. Arrogance of ignorance.

Also, PC isn't really about self-esteem. It doesn't try to boost self-esteem but makes people feel angry and blame others for their lack of self-esteem. After all, if a black guy says he appreciates the US, doesn't feel oppressed, and is happy with his life, he is attacked of being an 'uncle tom' or some such. PC is a contest of how "My people have less self-esteem because of 'racist' or 'homophobic' or 'sexist' oppression." PC may claim to boost self-esteem, but Progs are hostile to those who say they do have self-esteem and don't need 'social justice' to lead meaningful lives. Thus, PC is like a trick where it promises you more self-esteem but condemns you when you say you got self-esteem and don't need PC to feel good about yourself. PC is like some Christian sects that claim to save your soul but dislike you if you say you can find God on your own and don't need their help. It has to be their way. Your salvation must be through them, but of course, their treatment never ends... just like psychiatry never ends. Just ask Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys who was kept sick in the name of curing him of his sickness.

Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits.

Asian self-criticism may be sincere in part. Asians may have more 'panda' genes of anxiety, doubt, and subservience. As they evolved as a race of rice farming serfs, their genes were selected for servility. It might be somewhat different among Mongols who evolved as bride-stealing yogurt-gulpers. Also, Confucian values stressed modesty. Furthermore, in a status-crazed society, one's worth is always measured in relation to others, and there are always others who are better than you.

But in another way, Asian humility may be a kind of showing off. If in Asian culture, self-effacement is seen as a virtue, then one's self-esteem rises in inverse proportion to one's denial of such. It's like those Hollywood movies about Chinese where some guy says, "Welcome to my worthless house. This is my worthless son. Please have our worthless food." On the surface, it appears as humility, but it's really humility-as-pride, or false humility. After all, a display of humility is seen as a sign of superior breeding and manners.

Also, if you expect the worst, it's not so bad if things don't go your way. So, in a sense, it's good emotional strategy to expect less than more. If you win, you are happy. If you don't win, you don't feel so bad since you told yourself not to expect to win.

This is why blacks get so miffed when they don't win. They be telling themselves they's done deserved it and shi*. It's like that black winter Olympian who didn't get to carry the flag and got all sourpuss. It be my bling. But then, blacks are this way due to genetics than PC. They evolved to compete with one another to kill the most number of baboons and show them off as their bling.

Are whites into self-esteem? It seems PC says there is nothing more evil than White Pride. PC is about invalidating the right of White Identity. This may explain why anti-white vitriol is often most extreme among whites themselves. The ONLY way whites can feel esteem is by being goody-good whites, and that means they must hate, hate, and hate white 'racists' and 'supremacists'. So, that's how self-esteem works among whites. They want it too, but because whites can't have it collectively, whites are eager to earn it by screaming about baddy-bad whites.

Yan Shen: The systematic tendency of East Asians to underestimate their own abilities and engage in self-criticism may indeed be part of a constellation of unique cultural traits... This resilience against negative environmental influences also probably explains why by and large the parasitic memes of left-wing post-modernist insanity which have seemingly hijacked the minds of numerous black, white, and Hispanic Americans alike are absent amongst people of East Asian descent.

It's servility, and it's a trait that can be found in native Mexicans as well. Many native Mexicans are like brown Asians with lower IQ. But emotionally, they are similar. With Asians, it may have developed into a certain neurosis because of the culture's stress on both humility-servility and elitist-meritocracy. On the one hand, East Asian societies were very repressive and people were expected to keep their heads low. If you didn't bow properly in Japan, a samurai could cut your head off. Chinese weren't as ruthless but also had rough justice for those who didn't bow their heads low. So, this aspect of East Asian evolution favored servility and humility.
But because China developed a meritocratic society based on exams, it spread the idea to folks that nothing is as glorious as having a son who passes imperial exams and works for the emperor. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to be humble slavish folks. But another side of Chineseness said every father should try to make his son study and pass exams and bring honor to the family by becoming an adviser to the Emperor himself. So, one side of Chineseness told the people to bow your head low as possible, while another side of Chineseness told the people that, through exams, they could rise very high. So, Asians developed a cultural trait of rising higher with heads bowed low.

In contrast, Mexican natives never developed a universal meritocratic system like the Chinese did. It's interesting that the Chinese exam system was both elevating and repressive. While all forms of education demands form and manners, Professor Kingsfield in THE PAPER CHASE pushes his students to rise higher in intellect and think on their own. Kingsfield is a son-of-a-bitch in pushing his students to think independently. He wants to raise their intellectual independence as high as possible. In contrast, Confucian education meant one's elevation depended on total conformity to established truths and forms. There was no leeway for individual thought. The range of subject was narrow, the style of the essay was set in stone, and the answers were preordained. In this way, Chinese developed their way of PC of Philosophical Correctness that rigidly froze Chinese culture and knowledge, preventing it from thinking outside the box. In a way, Current Chinese education is still a form of PC. After all, what would happen if a Chinese student wanted to freely express his views about Mao, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and etc? What if he were to write an essay denouncing the decision of Xi Xinping to prolong his rule?

Indeed, the fact that so many Chinese could be mobilized to carry out something like the Great Leap Forward and later the madness of the Cultural Revolution goes to show that the Asian mindset isn't immune from total lunacy. Asians took rather earnestly to communism-Stalinism and carried out crazy horrors in China, North Korea, Vietnam, and especially Cambodia(though Cams are not East Asians to be sure).

I'm not sure blacks and browns are motivated by 'leftism'. After all, blacks love to see rich and powerful blacks with lots of bling. Same with browns. They are not opposed to inequality or riches per se. Blacks love millionaire black singers, athletes, TV personalities, and etc. If blacks are for black power, they are really black rightists. They just happen to be allied with white leftists. It's like Muslims in Europe ally with homos and liberals but they are NOT pro-homo or liberal. They are Muslim rightists who want to expand Muslim power. The only real leftists in the US are white progressives(who will work against white interest for 'higher good'), self-critical Jews like Philip Weiss and Max Blumenthal, and some East Asians as teacher's pets of PC. All three groups are willing to sacrifice tribal interest for a 'universal' or abstract principle. So, white progressives will support Affirmative Action. So, self-critical Jews will condemn right-wing Israel. So, East Asian PC commissars will expend most of their energies in serving a non-tribal cause or interest.

When white progressives and blacks holler 'black lives matter' together, the former are being 'liberal' in opposing 'racist' white police whereas the latter are being 'rightist' in that they are blacks who care, first and foremost, about black lives. Notice blacks don't care about all the black violence against other races. So, to bunch all these peoples under one label misses the point.

Speaking of 'post-modern insanity', it may be missing in China that is ruled by nationalist regime, but it's spread like a cancer in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They have massive homo parades, their pop culture is peter-pan-ish and Michael-Jacksonize the young, and they imitate whatever trends that emerge from the Jewish-homo-controlled West. I read in some blog that Taiwan is on the verge of passing 'gay marriage'. It might be law there already. Now, as long as Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan don't have lots of diversity, they will be more stable than rapidly diversifying West. But with rapidly falling populations, corporate demand for cheap labor, desire to emigrate overseas and abandon their own nations, and PC promoting 'multi-culturalism', it's very possible that East Asian nations except China will turn into Sweden and UK of the East. If we go by most Chinese journalists in Canada and US, it's amazing how fast and total their conversion to PC has been.

Yan Shen: In part because of their own cultural resilience, East Asians are often marginalized in American society and rendered invisible.

That isn't the main reason. Suppose East Asians lacked such 'resilience' and 'stoic' diligence. Would they be the favored center of attention? How many Americans pay much attention to Puerto Ricans? Or to Guatemalans? Do Muslims get much respect? Who speaks up for the Palestinians? There is the budding BDS movement, but most Americans care little about Palestinians. It's not that East Asians are 'marginalized'. It's that they fail to come into cultural focus. One reason is they complain less. After all, people pay attention to complainers, not to those who remain silent. Even among whites, the conservative boomers were more silent while liberal boomers made more noise. Guess who got more attention and power? So, would Asians have gained more attention if they'd complained more? Not likely. For one thing, Asians look geeky and have weaker voices. So, when an Asian complains, it's like the scene with Mickey Rooney in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S. When a Negro bellows to the whitey, white folks get scared like hearing god's thug angel telling them stuff. They pee their pants. But when someone like Mickey Rooney as Japanese shouts 'I protest', it doesn't inspire much emotions, good or bad, among whites. It's just amusing.


Also, Americans are very idolic and pay most attention to exciting stuff. Take Jackie Robinson. Why did he become such a legend? It was a combination of victim theme and victor theme so central to Christianity. As a black man, he stood for symbol of victim of 'white racism'. But as a man who succeeded in baseball, he came to be admired as a superior athlete who overcame imposed inferiority.
Now, East Asians may have achieved something similar. After all, there was the sad history of Chinese rail road workers. And we know about the Japanese in camps during WWII. But despite those odds and bad times, many Asians succeeded in professions and contributed to US society. Okay, but most professions are boring. They may be far more essential to society than hitting a ball, but Americans love exciting stuff. So, a Negro who hits home runs is more idol-worthy than an Asian who becomes a doctor or accountant or nerdy engineer. But then, it's the same in Asia. Bruce Lee didn't do anything but pretend to kick butts of all color on the movie screen. But he's better-known and more revered in Asia than real Asian folks who cure people, cook food, crunch numbers, build bridges, fix roads, and etc. The human mind is essentially idolic and iconologic. People seek heroes who offer thrills and chills.

Suppose East Asians dominated sports and pop music. They would not be 'marginalized'. After all, this 'marginalization' happens among Asians themselves. Take immigration. Why do Asians choose to leave their own ancestral nations forever and choose to settle in the West where they will be minorities of whites, blacks, & browns and live under the power of Jews and Homos? Why do Asian immigrants 'marginalize' their own nations into a distant memory and take on new identities in the West, often changing their name to something like 'Frank' or 'Francis'? Why do Asians reject their own nations, peoples, cultures, and lands to come to ANOTHER nation where their children are very likely to assimilate into non-Asian-ness? Also, judging by the number of Asian women who choose to have kids with non-Asian men, don't Asian women 'marginalize' Asian men? And why? Because Asian men have zero idolic value in America. Things might be different if Asians were good in sports or dominant in pop music, but not so. One may criticize American culture of being shallow and stupid for favoring trivial things over serious things, but isn't NBA huge in China? All those Asian boys worship black athletes. And according to an American Renaissance article, Chinese women throw themselves as white men in China.

So, if Asians reject Asian-ness as inferior, why should non-Asians give a crap about Asians? It seems the best plan for Asian survival is to end emigration and ban non-Asian immigration and deal with the world only in terms of sharing ideas and trading goods. But so many Asians have chosen to abandon their own people, lands, and cultures to come to the West. Once they've come to another nation, they must expect to be treated by the Norms of the New Nation. And in the US, the Norms are 'winner-takes-all' for the most idolic or iconic groups. And this is why only four groups matter: the Holy Three of Jews, blacks, and homos... and whites. Whites don't have 'victim' thing and are targeted by PC 24/7, but everyone still likes whiteness deep down inside. Look at all those Brazilians who want to have white babies. Look at Asian women who get plastic surgery and blonde hair to look white or marry white men to have white-looking babies. Look at black women who just gotta have their weaves. And look at Tiger Woods and black men who go for white women. And look at Jewish Portnoy Complex. So, everyone wants to feed off whites economically, politically, sexually, and etc. (Indeed, precisely because non-whites want to feed on the white whale, they paralyze it with 'white guilt' so that there won't be white resistance to this parasitism.) Whites are very iconic in this sense, but because they lack the 'victim' theme, they are not holy. To be holy, you need both victim theme and victor theme. Jews are the biggest winners in this because they got the victim theme of Shoah and victor theme of having succeeded so much in business, science, arts, and entertainment. Blacks got it because they got slavery-victim theme and victor theme as athletes and singers. With homos, it's largely manufactured, but still, homos claim victimhood because they were in the closet and claim victor-hood because so many homos saturate elite fields.

Now, East Asians may point to the opium trade, imperialism, building railroads, Philippines war, internment camps, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korean War, Vietnam War, Great Leap, and Cultural Revolution, etc. as examples of Asian victimhood. But opium war was with the Brits, not with Americans. And building railroads was tough, but it was not like the Chinese were brought by force like blacks. The internment camps were bad but not that bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very bad, but Japan attacked first and Japanese were doing worse in China. Korean War was bad, but Koreans act like grateful dogs of US, so not much happening there. Filipinos are likewise a silly people without historical gravitas. Vietnam War was bad too, but Vietnamese now LOVE Americans and want more business. Just when we thought Americans are amnesiac, I guess silly Viets are even more so. And Great Leap and Cultural Revolution, horrible as they were, were self-inflicted, so you can't blame white folks for that horror. So, even though there was lots of Asian suffering, the events don't really touch American nerves in a particularly tragic way.

Also, unless a people have idolic or iconic power, their past suffering just becomes the stuff of past history than living history. Because blacks are always visible as athletes, singers, and celebrities, white people are always prone to think, "Oh my god, blacks are so special, talented, and awesome, but we white folks whipped them and said, 'Hey ni**er, pick me some cotton'." Same with Jews. Because there has been so much Jewish talent in letters, arts, movies, music, comedy, and etc., people are always reminded of the specialness of Jews. Also, Jewish scientists changed the world. Asian ones are pretty good at grind-work, but Einstein was the prophet who figured out laws of the universe. And Oppenheimer built the mother of all bombs. That's some iconic shi*. Jewish genius got the spark whereas Chinese smarts only got the heat. So, the visibility of Jewish talent and genius makes people feel about Shoah especially. If Jews had exhibited no talent since the Shoah, I don't think people would much care about the tragedy. It is the the continuance of Jewish talent that reminds people of the evil of Shoah. It makes them feel, "The World committed a great wrong to a special people." But the supposed 500,000 Iraqi kids who died of sanctions? Who cares about low IQ cousin-humping Arabs? All those 'white trash' dying of opioids? Who cares about such low-IQ morons? Even Kevin Williamson who came from a 'white trash' community doesn't care. America's view of 'white trash' is they are only useful as consumers of opioids, cannon fodder for Wars for Israel, more meat for the porn industry, and the poster-child of 'racist white populism' that represents the mother of all evil.
Granted, Jews may lose out in the iconic game in the future. PC has undermined comedy, a field Jews have excelled in. In a PC world, guys like Mel Brooks, Rodney Dangerfield, Albert Brooks, and Don Rickles wouldn't have had a chance. Also, with pop music now being so totally rappy and hippy-hoppy and dumbed down, it's difficult for someone like Bob Dylan to emerge and make a difference. Also, if many talented Jews in the 60s were fueled by hunger and ambition, too many Jews born to privilege lack the fire and drive. And too many of them have mixed with bimbos who bring down Jewish IQ or with Asian women who bring down chutzpah quotient as Asians are servile than chutzpahistic.

Anyway, Chinese-Americans are no good in sports(relative to other races) and don't have the vocal power or movements to be rappers and such. So, whites are not reminded of Chinese tragedies because they don't notice Chinese talent in the 'cool' areas. But this is true of Mexicans and browns too. Sure, the progs pretend to care about the 'dreamers', but it's purely about political expediency. There is no interest in most Mexicans who are seen as Brown Asiatics with lower IQ.
Now, suppose Chinese were dominant in sports and entertainment in the US. Then, so much attention would be showered on Chinese winners, and there would be news stories about how such-and-such's grandfather was killed by evil Japanese or was discriminated by 'racist' America, or was once called a 'chink'. It's just how things work. Why do we know(and care) so much more about nations with famous national cinemas than ones without? Take France vs UK. Among cinephiles, France is a special place. UK is much less so. Why? Because French cinema really put French-everything on the map whereas UK cinema was far less renowned, usually seen as the lesser English-language cinema, a kind of poodle to Hollywood.

Yan Shen: For instance, it’s long been known that Asian Americans are discriminated against in the context of elite college admissions, bearing the brunt of the sacrifice required to create affirmative action spots for blacks and Hispanics in this country.

True, but even with such discriminatory policies, Asians are vastly OVER-represented in elite academia. But from a practical POV, wouldn't it be better for Asians if ALL were banned from elite colleges? After all, what happens when people, Asian or white or Muslim or Hindu, are admitted to elite colleges? Do they serve their own people? Well, Jews do. But who else? Whites who enter elite institutions become enemies of whites. Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and etc. never gave a shi* about white folks. They just joined the globalist club and raked it all in for themselves. Asians are no different. If you think Asians entering elite institutions means MORE Asian power, you're gravely mistaken. Paradoxically, it will mean less power for Asians. Why? Because Asians are status-obsessed rodentoids. Once they get in to an elite institution, the ONLY thing they care about is My Status, My Privilege, My Position. So, to secure their statuses, they will do ANYTHING to be be approved and accepted. Instead of gaining power to serve the Asian community or their ancestral nations --- like Jews serve Israel and fellow Jews around the world --- , Asian elites in the US will just be running dogs of the Empire. Unlike Jews who have the Covenant, Asians just have the Covetousness. So, if more Asians enter elite institutions, they will use their position to spread the agenda of the Empire to weaken Asia. I guarantee that all those Chinese who graduated from elite Canadian and American colleges are committed to spreading homomania, negromania, and diversity to Asia. And because Asians are such suckers for those with elite scholarly credentials, they will listen to the words of Asian Harvard and Yale graduates as if they're the words of gods. Asian elites will be just like white elites. When has Hillary Clinton the Yaley ever done anything for the white race or her own kind? Ted Cruz is supposed to be a conservative, but his main passion is Israel, Israel, Israel. Even half-white Obama turned traitor to blacks. He didn't do crap for the black folks. He mainly served Jews and homos, and now, he has a $60 million book deal. Look at all the white gentiles who write for NYT or WAPO. Do they ever care about white folks? No.

There was a time when white folks did enter Harvard and Yale and then did something for their own race. But Jews took over the elite institutions and rigged the curriculum to turn everyone into a shill for Zion, Afromania, and Homomania. If one serves Homomania, one is indirectly serving Jews because it's Jewish replacement for Christianity. If one serves Afromania, one is also indirectly serving Jewish power because Jews control the industries in which blacks are featured as athletes and singers. Jews have such power over blacks that they even grab black puds and asses with impunity, and the Negroes just have to take it.


Anyway, think of Harvard and etc as Janissary Schools for all groups except for Jews. Jews enter elite institutions to serve and push Jewish interests. Everyone else is turned into a Janissary of the GLOB. Whether it's a white gentile, Asian, mulatto, or Hindu, they turn into the kind of running dogs who bark for the bombing of Syria. If Asians want to make a difference, they should stay on the outside of elite institutions and form organizations to criticize The Power. Entering elite colleges is like entering the Roach Motel. Your soul checks in but it doesn't check out.

Yan Shen: Even when the correct reporting of the facts began to surface later on, we were still subjected to the typical blathering accusing the Trump administration of being disingenuous by feigning interest in the well-being of Asian Americans and proclaiming that Asians shouldn’t allow themselves to be used as tools by white conservatives in advancing their right-wing agenda. The fact that 64 different Asian American groups had filed a complaint against Harvard seemingly eluded everyone. One generally got the impression that Asian Americans were a group deprived of any real agency, instead being merely hapless pawns in the Game of Thrones pitting whites on the one hand against blacks and Hispanics on the other.

I don't think Trump should give a crap about Asians. 80% of them voted for Hillary, and that means most Asians are for the displacement and replacement of White Americans in the nation that they founded and built. With Asians supporting such a vile agenda, why should Trump or whites care about Asians?
Also, if Asians really have agency, why it did take Ron Unz's article to deal the first real blow to the 'myth of meritocracy'? As Unz pointed out, Asians in California have been ignoring black-on-Asian crime and problems associated with illegals and just dishing out the same old anti-white rhetoric that they absorbed from PC. So, the Asian-American narrative barks on command for its PC master. There is no agency there. Furthermore, Asian-American groups who complain about discrimination have said they support affirmative action for blacks and browns. Their plan is to sacrifice EVEN MORE WHITES to make room for more Asians. It's a dirty move.
Granted, NYT and progs are full of shi* as well. If they really care about proportional justice, why don't they point to Jewish over-representation in all elite fields? Hardly 'fair'.

Yan Shen: Another insidious example of the tendency to marginalize Asian Americans has been the rather curious phenomenon as of late of simply pretending that they aren’t even Asian at all. For instance, we constantly hear the mainstream media bemoaning the fact that Silicon Valley lacks diversity and is too white and male. Yet this conveniently ignores the fact that whites are actually underrepresented overall at many of the Bay Area’s most elite firms relative to their percentage amongst the general population.

LOL. It's also amusing because many of those 'whites' are also Jews, which means white gentile under-representation is the real problem. Anyway, since whites are the Villains according to PC, it won't do to say there are Too Many Asians. They have to be made 'white'. It's like the complaints about Stuyvesant school having 'too many whites' when it's majority Asian. 'Whites' is sometimes used as cover for Asian, just like 'teens' is often a cover for black thugs.

But two things. Aren't East Asians a bunch of white-wanna-be's? After all, why did they leave their own peoples and cultures to be with whites and to attend white-made institutions? Also, with all the race-mixing with whites, it seems East Asians want to have white-looking kids. And even a Chinese American woman, Andrea Cheng, is wondering about Asian women dyeing their hair blonde. Isn't it better for Asians to stay in Asia and defend and tend what they got instead of coming to the West and bitching about unfairness? I think if a people move to another land, they don't have the right to complain much. If whites moved to China, they better accept Chinese norms. Otherwise, they should leave. Same with Asians in the West. If they don't like it, they can just go back.

Yan Shen: The obsession with self-esteem and the fundamental lack of what might be described as a self-critical orientation is hardly the sole province of those on the left...
One of the more disappointing revelations in my opinion has been the extraordinary ambivalence of many right-wing whites towards clear anti-Asian discrimination in this country. On various alt-right blogs where themes such as race realism and affirmative action are often discussed, when it comes to the issue of Asian Americans and meritocracy, many right-wing whites seemingly abandon their principles whole. Thus, while these individuals formerly denounced discrimination against whites in favor of blacks and Hispanics, we all of a sudden hear that Asian American academic success is merely the result of cheating and gaming the system.

Again, much of what is called the 'left' is really the non-white right. Rightism puts one's own people and culture at the center. So, blacks and browns who want affirmative action are really black or brown rightists or 'nationalists' who are for "Is it good for my people?"

As for the Alt Right, of course it is opposed to 'principled meritocracy'. Alt Right is about blood and soil. It values Power over Principles. Now, if supposedly principled libertarians approved of AA against Asians, that would pose a problem of logic and consistency. But Alt Right isn't libertarian. It is first and foremost about racial solidarity, ethnic identity, and cultural heritage. Alt Right is for exclusive meritocracy or meritocracy within the white order for the good of whites. So, in an all-white society, Alt Right would be 100% for meritocracy. But in a diverse order where it's a case of competition among various groups, Alt Right has to be for white power first. It must be race-ist. Now, Alt Right might be for meritocracy for Asians IF Asians weren't anti-white. But Asians in the US are mostly running dogs of PC, and once they get their fancy degrees, work against the white race. The vast majority of Asians voted for Obama the homomaniacal monster and Hillary the race-traitor witch-monster-whore. Amy Chua, the Harvard grad and Yale professor, wrote a new book blasting Alt Right and Richard Spencer. This is the reality. So, hell with 'principles'. The fact is most Asians are status-obsessed running dogs. Since PC is the official religion of the US, most Asians who attend elite colleges will become agents of PC and will do everything to hurt 'whitey'. Now, if Vietnamese patriots wanted to kill US neo-imperialist soldiers, OK. That was their turf, and Americans were the occupiers. But since when do Asians get to come to the US and work against the very people whose ancestors built this country? That's a lowlife shi* move.

Also, the highest principle is not meritocracy but truth, honesty, and courage. After all, Billy Boy Clinton is a very bright guy who made it to Yale with real smarts. But his meritocracy with grades didn't translate into meritocracy of virtue or integrity. He's a slimeball through and through. Indeed, so many of these graduates of elite colleges are just the most craven, repellent, lowlife, scummy, and turdy critters I've ever seen. Just look at Obama, Ted Cruz, Hillary, Biden, Gore, Emanuel, Yoo, Comey, and the list goes on. I mean where did they find these people? What a waste of intelligence.

Being Asian, Yan Shen is fixated on degrees(like Negroes are fixated on blings and Mexicans on pinatas), but he should care less about meritocracy and more about truthocracy, honestocracy, and couragocracy, all of which are missing in the parenting culture that is obsessed mainly with gaining status and privilege for one's kibblers.

Alt Right position makes perfect sense. In white nations, whites should do everything to secure their own pride, power, prestige, and well-being. The fact is races are different, and if one takes a principled approach on universal standards, one's own people will lose out IF the other race is superior. This is why whites need a sports culture of their own. A white league. As whites cannot compete with stronger and faster blacks, meritocracy in sports has led to cucky loss of manhood and jungle fever among white womenfolk. And Yan Shen should know that his Chinese folks are losing out meritocratically in the US for the most part. Even if the US were to get rid of all Affirmative Action and even if more Asians were to attend elite colleges, the fact remains that Asian men lose out sexual-meritocratically to men of other races. Raw manhood is judged by height, muscularity, personality, and dong-size, and it seems Asian men can't keep a lot of their own womenfolks. So, what does it matter if some Asian male geeks attend Harvard? The Chinese girlies are still gonna go with other men anyway. Yan, being Asian, is so fixated on exams and colleges, but meritocracy operates in every field. Why do so many white boys get beat up by black boys? I've seen a lot of it when I grew up. Because blacks win meritocratically in muscle power and aggression. If whites, who are still huge in number, keep losing out in the nation that they made, do Asians want to stake their future in the West? What for? Just to turn into running dogs of PC? Just to have lots of race-mixing whereby Asians become half-whites or mulat-tofus?
The best advice is in Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA. "Mountain doesn't move." Asians have China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and etc. They should do everything to keep it. That's a lot of good stuff. Trying to gain in the West will only turn them into cuck-roaches of globalism. It's like the Mongols failed in the end. They were outnumbered by the Chinese and got absorbed into China. Likewise, all the Asians in the West will be sexually, culturally, and politically absorbed into the West and become cuck-roaches of Jewish and Homo power. The ONLY reason Asians should study in the West is to take back the skills to their home nations.

The real war for the West must come from white nationalists. They are the only hope. Alt Right understands one thing. While individuality and meritocracy are important, the identity and power come first and foremost. All ethno-cultural orders function this way. Israel maintains itself because it favors even mediocre Jews over smart gentiles. Perhaps, Israeli GDP will go up if it welcomes high IQ gentiles from all over and let them take over much of the economy. But what will this mean to Jews in a Jewish nation?
Or look what meritocracy has done to Southeast Asia. Chinese minorities have taken over entire industries. Is that worth it? Even if native majority aren't as smart as the Chinese, isn't it more sensible for them to develop their own means to build and establish majority domination of national industries?

The dark lesson of meritocracy can be learned from rise of Jewish Power. Whites took a chance on Jews as fellow whites who happened to be Jewish. As a child, I felt this way and thought most Jews in my school were basically whites with a different religion who just wanted to do well in society. But since the 80s, Jews use meritocracy to gain elite power and do terrible things to undermine White America. It's appalling. And they are doing it even to Europe with ancient roots of blood and soil. And they are exporting homomania all over the world, even to Asia and even to Muslim Turkey(!) until Erdogan(in one of the few sane things he did) said NO MORE. Because Jews are white, they could have made common cause with white gentiles. But they chose not to. And they are now using their immense power to finish off the white race. Will Jews come to their senses and rejoin the white race? The best bet for Jews and whites is to see the main global divide as being between whites(with Jews as fellow whites) and non-whites. But because Jews see the main divide as between Jews and Gentiles, they seek to maximize diversity among gentiles to break up their power via divide-and-rule so as to serve Jewish hegemony. If things continue as they are, the white enforcement of meritocracy for all groups would have been the biggest mistake ever. It's like the Greek Olympics. It was meritocratic but open ONLY to Greeks. Greeks didn't import big-ass Negroes to outrun and out-whomp the Greeks.
Meritocracy must be a tool to serve the race.

There are two kinds of people. Those who use ideology to serve an identity and those who use identity to serve an ideology. The former will always win. Jews win because they use ideas of both left and right to serve Jewish power. Whites lose because they offer their identity to the service of either a fixed ideology or another identity not their own.

Because the races are different, the results of meritocracy becomes race-ist. Take sports. There is no racial discrimination in sports that says NO MEXICANS, ASIANS, HINDUS, ETC ALLOWED. But there is still biological discrimination that favors blacks and effectively excludes many non-black groups. It's even more pronounced between men and women. Women must have their own space in sports because meritocratic competition with men will lead to total loss for women. (Just see what happens as more trannies enter women's sports.) In the end, even individualism fails because of racial differences. Suppose every black basketball player is a libertarian individualist who doesn't see himself as black but as just a free agent. But when he joins a team that is all black, how can he not notice and feel a sense of black power? Likewise, Yuri Slezkine in THE JEWISH CENTURY remarked that even anti-religious communist Jews couldn't help feeling a certain tribal solidarity when so many Jews ended up in elite institutions by meritocracy.
So, even meritocracy leads to racial consciousness. Some groups are more likely to win collectively and others are more likely to lose collectively in certain fields.

Now, imagine a society of people A, B, C, D, and E. Suppose A constitute 5% of the nation while E constitute 50% of the nation. Suppose A has many more bright people, and suppose they gain 50% of the top spots. And suppose peoples B, C, and D take 45% of the spots. Suppose People E take 5% of the spots. That would be meritocratic indeed, but won't people A feel a great sense of racial pride and power? After all, they are the 5% who got 50% of the power. And won't people E feel lots of resentment as the 50% of the population with only 5% of the power? Even if everyone tried to pretend that it's all about individual merit, they would start noticing factors of race and identity. People A will feel tempted to use their vast power to favor A-interests that may actually harm People E. After all, meritocrats can be real sons of bitches. Consider how the rich and powerful elites lobby the US government to push policies that take EVERYTHING away from white folks. It's one thing for smart people to make lots of money and live well. Even poor white folks didn't have much grudge against fabulously rich folks. But that's not enough for the Koch brothers of the world. They must push for 'free trade' that turns entire communities into rust belts. Even so, one might say white folks still have their nation as common historical property. But nope, even that is to be taken from them by demographic replacism resulting from non-stop mass invasion. So, white folks not only had to accept other people making a lot more money and shipping factories overseas. They were also supposed to swallow the eventuality of losing ownership of their nation that had been founded and built by Europeans. Worse, they are supposed to resign themselves to even ancient Europe being swallowed up by Africans and Muslims.

What recent history teaches us is that meritocracy is no guarantee for loyalty and integrity. Many Jews and globalist elites who amassed tremendous wealth and power through meritocracy felt no loyalty to the historical nation. And they were committed to pushing any number of lies to realize the globalist vision to destroy universal nationalism that had been the basis of so much good and stability in the post WWII order.

Meritocracy turned into Imperitocracy.

Henceforth, history must be seen as a war among races. In a war, there is no 'fair play' or 'principles'. In war, you do ANYTHING to win. It is a primal clash of powers. In order for white folks to have a world of principled meritocracy once again, they must first secure an Order of Power for themselves, one that cannot be invaded by non-whites or usurped by hostile elites. Meritocracy and principles are good in the abstract, but a people and culture are not an abstraction. They are real. And they must first secure reality before they create an order of principles and rules.

If meritocracy leads to another people gaining power over your people and then using that power to destroy your people, the hell with meritocracy... at least for the time being until you can build a new order in which your people are safe and secure.